North Face Denali,cancer

midterm elections: Obama loses points, but in America is different

not always the whole world is country. We are told that Obama is not going badly and that the midterm elections have certainly not improved the situation as already predicted by the polls. All true, but it should be noted that the U.S. Constitution is not equal to the Italian, and generally has important differences in all European constitutions.

First, the midterm elections are not a true picture of public opinion, let alone can serve as a yardstick of the agreement reserved to the President. This is because there is no proportional representation, in America you do not vote the party but never the individual candidate. This allows you to have a policy that rewards those who bring serious ideas and want to bump for them, because we will see the end. Suppose that X has been on duty for the renewal of one third of the Senate in midterm elections this year. This was the union must give two senators, the state X with a majority of votes for the Democratic Party, but has two Republican senators. No matter how many votes in fact take the list as a whole (as would be the proportional vote) to get the seat will be the two most voted candidates. Suppose there are 20 candidates. Democrats get 11 votes each in 1000, seven of the Republicans get 900 votes each, two other Republicans get instead 1001 votes each. Taking the sum we get 11,000 votes to 8,302 votes for the Democrats and the Republicans.

Obama's party in the state of their opponents well beyond X 2698 votes, if they were presidential elections this state would be counted as one of those who voted in favor of Obama. In the presidential elections because there are states. Instead there are two Senate Republicans who have been awarded to more than one vote to scrap all the possible Democratic candidates.

In the U.S. political system is certainly driven by the parties, but these have a weight significantly different from those in Europe, the X in the state Republican Party has had to rely on two strong candidates, oppure hanno saputo farsi appoggiare dalle lobby giuste, le quali a sua volta trovano molto più conveniente investire su singoli candidati, che non su interi apparati di partito. Da un lato il sistema nominale permette ai singoli dotati di idee nuove di andare avanti senza essere pugnalati alla schiena dagli apparati. Per inciso può anche capitare che il candidato di una lista civica minoritaria, non sostenuto da nessun partito, ottenga il seggio mandando a casa i candidati dei due partiti certamente maggioritari nello stato X: democratico e repubblicano. Dall’altro lato questo sistema è penetrabile dalle lobby d’affari, che in questo modo possono, attraverso campagne mediatiche, far vincere candidati che non rispecchiano affatto la volontà popolare, ma solo gli interessi economici di pochi.

In quest’ottica la notizia della “sconfitta” di Obama alle elezioni di medio termine si apre ad interpretazioni più profonde. Senza fare dell’attuale presidente un santino consideriamo un attimo quanti interessi ci sono in campo: le corporation delle armi vedranno ridotte le loro commesse in Iraq; le società di assicurazione sanitaria non potranno più fare quel che gli pare e nel mercato finanziario si vogliono ripristinare i paletti che limiteranno le speculazioni finanziarie; poi c’è il Tea Party dei Conservatori, l’ala più reazionaria del partito repubblicano: una fucina di idee che ogni giorno forma nuovi singoli candidati with new slogans and alternative ideas, and so on. We have a lobbying and conservative intellectuals, committed to regaining control of Congress. No wonder we have been successful, exploiting the fact that the changes Obama wants to introduce a law-socio-anthropological-cause more resistance in people.

However, even gaining control of Congress, Republicans will have to deal with other aspects of the U.S. Constitution that the media have explained our own there. Typically, the legislation has the House of Representatives, the Senate has more limited purpose. Let's say it passes a law proposed by Republicans aimed at restoring the domain of the private sector in American health care. A number of democratic representatives may table a motion against the law and with the signing of a senator, that law must be passed to the Senate where traditionally there are no agendas, is the sole arbiter of the President ' assembly, but this post is for the U.S. Vice President, that is, institutionally speaking-glove with the head of state. There being no strict rules, an agenda they obstruction is considered a practical rather than honorable, on behalf of the democratic principle according to which even those who represent a minority must be able to hear his voice. There have been extreme cases of senators che hanno tenuto parola per ben 24 ore di fila! Impedendo così che una legge a loro sgradita venisse approvata.

Supponiamo che in tal giorno al Senato tutti i senatori “obamiani” abbiano la raucedine. A quel punto la legge passa. Non fa niente, perché Obama può esercitare il suo diritto di veto, che è diverso dal veto che può esercitare il presidente della repubblica italiana. Secondo la Costituzione Usa infatti, al veto presidenziale deve seguire una nuova votazione, stavolta di entrambe le camere e la legge passa solo con una maggioranza dei due terzi in entrambe. Inutile dirvi che difficilmente i repubblicani potranno ottenere così tanti seggi, a meno che non riescano per loro le lobby a comprarsi some sniper. This would be facilitated by the fact that in America the committees are open to representatives of multinational companies and banks. But a two-thirds majority in both chambers is something rare and unique ... a member of the American coast!

So if you do not get the necessary votes the law will no longer be put back on to the next legislation. Not to mention that, because of these mechanisms, by tradition the president is the first legislature, which is usually in the Congress are discussed mainly the bills of the government. To say that Obama is weak I seem exaggerated, at least you should explain in which it is. As I understand the polls are more believable than a mid-term elections, we also consider the fact that presidents of a party that is dominant in the Congress found that opponents were always there and this has not prevented them from being re-elected. The worrying thing in this whole story is that on the one hand are not about the important role that the lobbyists and extremist groups like the Tea Party had in elections to the Congress, we do believe with the other omissions-willed and not-in America how things work in Europe, if not in Italy, preventing us from having a clear picture of what really happens. I am not surprised at this point, check that the conservative media in the U.S. have already usato questi “taglia e cuci” per far credere di essere popolari. Gente che non vuole le riforme, perché teme di dover fare la fila come i comuni mortali all’ospedale, e chiama tutto ciò che concerne il welfare, comunismo.