-TSS-

In order to direct this thread again on the op of the question I must answer to the question posed by myself: No Having said that, I fully understand the problems people have with Ohio or other swing states every time electing the president. However, in my opinion the US-system is a splendid in its way how it emphasises the very federalism the country is built on. So, if it were up to me, I wouldn't change it but as it is not just up to me and there is a lot of discontent hence the discussion.

If it were a question of any other country than the US your tantrum would make sense. As the question is about the US, we all on this globe do have a right to say how the US-president is elected.

An interesting article in the Economist a couple of weeks ago. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571485-plan-change-electoral-college-carries-whiff-desperation-moving-goalposts?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e Namely, should the whole idea of the electoral college be consigned to the dustbin and move to a pure popular vote? If not as radical as that should the Congress-districts be the winner-takes-all mandates rather than entire states? On the other hand, changes to the current system would change the campaigning as well. When everything is not decided in 2-3 swing states the candidates should reach out to every voter across the country. This would pose a problem too. The so-called big tent candidates win on being moderate. In a different system you must stand out and the election could polarise people even more.

¨Whatever your views of him were it can be said that in the future it won't be any longer required in general knowledge to know the name of the president of Venezuela.

The result in Italy was a stalemate, but don't worry, Berlusconi is not gonna get back in. If not for anything else, then given the dire situation of the country's economy and the word from Angela Merkel that she doesn't want to see Berlusconi ever again, that should do it.

Some countries, such as the UK, have allowed the sharia-law to co-exist with the national law in civil matters such as divorce or inheritance. There couldn't be a bigger mistake than allowing that to happen. Any country which claims to be secular must adhere to the principle that no religious laws are given any preference in any case. Besides, when the sharia-law is applied to the muslim-community where there are a lot of muslims, it has been emphasized that applying the sharia-law is completely voluntary. Do they really think it is voluntary for a muslim living in a muslim-neighborhood?

The Boston Tea Party was a major event in the American history. Surely there must be a lot of protests within the US that a poltical movement has hijacked the term "tea-party" to suit its agenda which by no means is agreed on by a very large proportion of the American people?

The news of the pope quitting was full of interviews of people who said they were shocked to hear that the pope had quit. How on earth can anyone be shockked when an elderly man who is no longer up to the job, whatever the pope's job is, decides to step down. Bad rumours are saying that the pope was forced to quit because there will be very unpleasant revelations ahead concerning the finances of the Vatican and if the man were still in charge it would jeopardise the whole institution. Instead now they can pick a new guy who will be able to say that he has nothing to do with the financial irregularities.

Papacy had some relevance in the past centuries when people genuinely believed that the pope is always a direct disciple of Peter and if you disagreed with the pope you went to hell because the pope was infallible. In this day and age the whole institution is anachronistic.

Norway does not belong to the EU, they have oil and even if the oil runs out today their reserve-funds would secure them a comfortable lifestyle for the next 200 years. Having said that they have been lucky to have politicians who have resisted demands by people that those funds should be squandered here and now for the benefit of the people who live today.

These kind of lists have only entertainment-value, nothing else, yet still people seem to be taking these lists as if they were some sort of gospel of truth.

The Economist is a very neo-liberal magazine and therefore I am inclined to believe that to listen to what they say and do exactly the opposite and you can't go wrong. However, as for the survey itself, it is a very subjective matter which one of the world's wealthiest countries, around 20 of them, is the best place to live. Depends what you emphasize.

I thought the election's over. I mean every time an election is coming up this issue also crops up.

Countries with a federal system of government such as Canada is tend to have bicameral parliaments. One chamber representing the people and the other representing the constituent regions.

I'm amazed that the Israeli elections has inspired people to this many replies. Perhaps it is true that Israel is an important country. As for the election itself, it was safe for Netanyahu to call an early election as it was clear from the start that there could not be any majority-coalition which wouldn't include himself as PM. His best campaign-organiser has been without any doubt Hamas. Without them he wouldn't enjoy such popularity.

I think all that hulabaloo about Obama's second inauguration revealed a difference between the mindsets of Americans and the rest of the western world. I mean, he swore his oath of office on Jan 20th which is always the date of the oath of office for every president. That is fine. Why bring all that circus on the following day? He had already been one day into his second term.

Not a nice result but very expected and to a degree an understandable one.

There is a common joke in Russia about language studies: The optimists study English, the pessimists study Chinese.

I have never been of the popular opinion here in Europe that Americans are morons. After all, the Americans put a man on the moon. Having said all this, I can't blame the Europeans for thinking that Americans are morons. The re-election of George W Bush is a perfect example of that claim.

One thing in common with all the top10 countries is that they are all small countries. OK, Canada isn't small even populationwise, it's a middle-sized country, but the others are.

I'm sad that there is no more anyone like Vaclav Klaus, a person with common sense and euroscepticism, on offer for President of the Czech Republic.

This is such a good video as to how we Europeans view Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBgAQc-MnGM

As for Paisley and adams wasn't it a case that unless there had been an understanding on forming a coalition-government within a given time the governance of the province would have been transferred to be jointly administered by London and Dublin and that would have rendered the politicians of the province useless. Even Paisley and Adams don't hate each other that much that they would have let that to happen. I guess there are a lot of people of Irish descent in Canada and they are interested in this issue of Northern-Ireland, which is understandable.

To me all this hassle seems like that the people in Northern-Ireland have realized that people elsewhere in the world have forgotten that Northern-Ireland exists; so they have to remind of their existence.

I know that it will never happen in North-American professional sports but just toying with the idea that there should be a lower tier as well to which the weakest team(s) would be relegated into and from which the strongest team(s) would be promoted from to the top tier. That would increase competition also at the bottom of the league-table for teams which have long lost their chances of making it to the play-offs.