le 05032015 E1

Hi all

http:// creachmichelblog.wordpress.com/ French, English

http:// creachmichel2014.wordpress.com Italian, Spanish

http:// lebretonblog.WordPress.com / English, Deutschland

Then, not more, knowing what, invent, MARISSOL TOURAINE and VALLS (Yes, I say VALLS because we doubt, that she has not thought alone), they hand us on the mat, the neutral package and single-drug to spite the world knowing, that this will not advanced hair, the schmiblick and that it wants not one , or the other, do not be surprised, if it déboule, after all, you it will be searched for on the history of its unique drug, should be can be as one stops to take us for idiots, we are well aware that laboratories, will get full pockets, and stop wanting us to believe that it is to limit either saying them too many drugs , Stop and clear of power, this makes 40 time you we’re lying, it is 40 years that you turned crazy, and even now with the case of the BUGALED BREIZH and you believe that we are going to trust you, but you dream, you see, I am convinced, that it n will be that only one round in 2017, so, yen is fed up of everything you represent (UMPSDI(, in the same bag)

AH to the fact, for info, but you know since you made before, it was the crossword in the National Assembly, now, c is Smartphones (DATI, PECRESSE, MORANO) and others. on the what, on tap, normal, if you do, do it with a bit of decency.


Putin , there, in these cases there, realized the strength of the people, when, that ci like its leader,and how, a leader can be appreciate it, proves one thing is that if a leader is the natural extension of a people, like the tail of a dog, it will follow, eyes closed, on the other hand, if it is the attention to the damage contraire(si le chien se mord la queue), even if those are things that we know, just not to forget in short, against the Crimea against the Ukraine, he realized, even, if he knew before, against Crimea, when it had a standing ovation(tout le monde s’est levé d’un seul trait) to a meeting very important,(mais malheureusement, je ne me rappel plus dele de nom de cette réunion) on the part of its members, or other,(je ne sais pas,comment, on les appelle), and in Ukraine, seeing, all these Ukrainian soldiers get express stop and not by 10 by 90, see 120, because asked the impossible(tirer sur la population), then the people was in a small Committee, so if one is pushed a climax, I do, tell you (OH! If), eh, I’d like to bieng you meu discusses!, GAGs, cit « .the unknown ‘

AREVA: the disturbing results of Lauvergeon years


Pay-political governance deal Uramin, Finnish EPR, financial situation… In its report on the 2006-2012 period, the Court of Auditors is the trial of the french nuclear group.

This was to be a regular report, as the Court of Auditors in writes regularly on the sphere of State-owned businesses. But Areva is not an ordinary business, and the period to which the magistrates of the rue Cambon are interested is not more to it: between 2006 and 2012, the french nuclear group will have all known, renewal from Atom to the Fukushima disaster, hopes of opening up of capital to the threats of dismantling. These years will be particularly marked by the battle between its former President, Anne Lauvergeon, his « best enemies », Henri Proglio and Patrick Kron. A fierce fight found echo throughout this « statement of preliminary findings. 122 pages long, this document should lead to a final report expected at the end of the month, but nothing will change on the bottom. Governance to the fiasco of the Finnish EPR, passing through case Uramin and the questioning of the « integrated model » of Areva, the Court is sea the management of the company and worries about its future…

The faults of governance

Seldom a report of the Court of Auditors have been so « incarnate ». If the name of Anne Lauvergeon is finally little quoted, his personality and his style of management are exposed almost on every page. The magistrates of the Court stated: « a number of difficulties of the group, particularly in relation to guardianship, in the period prior to 2012, come primarily from the strong personality of the President of the Executive Board. » Between other dysfunctions, the drafters of the report refer to these ‘elliptical records or meetings on paper’, they deem unsatisfactory nor the  » concentration of real power in the hands of the President ». These reproaches, Anne Lauvergeon considers them unfounded. In its response to the original transmitted last month to the Court considers as«a strong and dynamic personality was needed to succeed the creation of such a group, develop the world nuclear leader, motivate teams».

But the criticism of judges does not stop there. In the chapter devoted to the Organization and governance of Areva, they also denounce the policy of remuneration of the leaders of the group before 2012: « the remuneration of the former President of the Executive Board had a very rapid progression in his second term. Such a development was based on an assertive claim of catch-up by comparison with the CAC 40 business leaders. The late discovery of records whose mismanagement today very expensive group to criticize such a progression, based in large part on success rates falsely precise. »

Evidently, even « If person issues play a role, » the social model of Areva, based on a supervisory board and a Management Board has, for the Court, clearly lived. ‘In the current scheme of governance, the Executive Board could take only the decision to sign the contract of the Finnish EPR OL3, source of a loss of more than 3 billion euros for Areva. The Governing Council would in the State, who would be represented, to pronounce on large commercial offers from Areva and stop the accounts’, underline the magistrates. The idea is not new. Pierre Blayau, the current Chairman of the Supervisory Board, is responsible to think since 2012. Changes in this sense could intervene in the coming months. But has yet to decide if, in this new configuration, the president would also be CEO. Corroborating sources, the separation of the two functions would be privileged today. That assumes that the Chairman of the Board, Luc Oursel, agrees to become ‘simple’ CEO…

The « obscure areas » the Uramin folder

Friday, May 16, the correctional tribunal of Paris will examine a murky business of spying, for the husband of the former boss of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon. Originally, a report made by a pharmacy of economic intelligence based in Switzerland, on the conditions of redemption of Uramin, a small Canadian mining company holding deposits of uranium in Africa. Paid high price (1.8 billion euros) in 2007, the three deposits in question are today unexploited by Areva and were the subject of a massive depreciation in the accounts of the group. For lawyers who have had access to the report of the Court of Auditors, the hearing may turn to the great unpacking. Because the finding of the experts of the rue Cambon is particularly severe: « If obscure that are some adventures of the Uramin case before the courts have yet to know, it reveals the individual mistakes or breaches, not of defects in monitoring, even of concealment, admittedly difficult to appreciate but that the group, according to the available documents, has not sought to elucidate.. Branch relied on a malfunction of the governance of the group, formula too vague to close a serious case.  » The facts are such that the Court decided in February, well before its final conclusions, therefore, to make a report to the Paris Prosecutor’s office. A preliminary investigation was opened for « presentation or publication of accounts inaccurate or infidels », « dissemination of false or misleading information », « false and uses of fake » for the period 2007-2010.

Why will be launched in 2007 in such an adventure? « The context of 2006 and 2007 is a perspective of growth in the demand of uranium and the increase of prices in the world », recognized the Court. But when, from April 2007, the project to buy Uramin is presented to the EPA and the Supervisory Board, ‘ presentation of the operation is optimistic […] little doubts are issued on the interest of the acquisition  » and the ‘price, as high as is, is shared and accepted by all. The Executive Board and the services of Areva did not project in an objective manner to the Supervisory Board ». At the time, the Executive Officer of Areva – to which belonged already Luc Oursel – ensures particular to the supervisory authorities that resale of 49% of the capital of Uramin to a Chinese investor and EDF must intervene in the short term. It will never happen.

Subsequently, Areva will invest massively in its three mines, while ‘ market conditions had changed « , critical Court. From 2007 to 2011, not less than EUR 865 million will be spent, in particular on the Trekkopje deposit, in Namibia, « before even surveys geological seriously have been made ». Investments judged « hasty » by the Court because « of the lack of knowledge of the subsoil, of signals, the economic crisis and the fall in the price of uranium ». « Fed debates take place then within the Business Unit mining, between it and branch financial and with the general direction of the group, on the content of the deposits in ore, on the cost of returns mines…» », notes the Court. However, « nothing appears in the consolidated accounts 2008 and 2009, despite these uncertainties » and « the information of the governing bodies of the Group on the seriousness of the problem comes very late and too discreetly in 2010».

Between the lines, the court sees it as a kind of « forging ahead » direction: stop investments, it was to admit the failure of the operation. The Uramin case will erupt in 2011, « in a challenging non-renewal of the mandate of Anne Lauvergeon ». Provisions considerable – EUR 2 billion – are then passed in the accounts.

For the Court, it is a ‘serious’case, in which the « obscure areas remain », even if ‘the faults are difficult to identify’. The Prosecutor, he began his investigations. « The conclusions of the preliminary report of the Court of Auditors are questionable and will be challenged. I have not found the reasons that could justify the reporting to the Prosecutor of the Republic personally », replies counsel for Anne Lauvergeon, Jean-Pierre Versini-Campinchi.

The drift of large projects

That is, with years Lauvergeon Uramin, the second ‘industrial disaster’ case. And the magistrates of the Court of Auditors were naturally interested closely: ten pages of the report are devoted to « drift of the Olkiluoto EPR », the first third-generation reactor, whose construction, in Finland, no more end of filling the accounts of Areva. The opportunity to go back to the genesis of this project, which displays now seven years late and a loss at end of 3.5 billion euros for the french group. Referring to the testimony of the Finnish client TVO, the Court evokes « ready to everything to provider sell its first EPR, whose design was not yet quite advanced ». Under the international arbitration proceedings between the two parties about this construction, the same TVO « could try to show that Areva has deliberately misled it (on its readiness and its ability to build the EPR in time) and ran out of jurisdiction », continues the report.

Without actually accuse Areva of having encountered difficulties in the conduct of this complex project, in a country he knew evil, the Court considers that « these challenges could be better analysed upstream of the signature of this contract ». It also regrets that the group is not ‘able to produce technical work remaining to make reliable estimates whether their cost or the time required to complete term’. In the end, write the magistrates, ‘with the often more optimistic assumptions that the actual construction, conduct policy provisioning of Areva is characterized by a low risk anticipation’.

A clearly problematic reproach that comes up often, and became the reading of the report. Because Olkiluoto is not the only site where Areva meets difficulties. In Sweden, the contract for the extension of life expectancy and the increase in power of an old reactor has also experienced delays and engendered provisions. And in Finland again, the contract awarded for the renovation of two reactors of the Loviisa is not passed as expected: the difficulties encountered locally led there yet to litigation and the blocking of the project. The Group had « signed the contract without pointed out that it included a technical description does not match its technology », slip the drafters of the report… Two examples to the limited financial stakes, but that witness « derivatives of significant costs » on most of the major projects. For the Court, they ‘ reflect the optimism of Areva, which has underestimated the costs and time required for large-scale projects […].»  » Several of them have not stabilized completion date, taking into account the technical difficulties encountered or relations degraded with customers ‘. More generally, concludes the report, « the period under review shows the difficulty of Areva to extract contentious projects and control the services of its subcontractors. Result of weaknesses in the old procedures group and shortages in engineering capabilities that remain below the level required for the completion of projects of this complexity».

Changes in governance enterinant the end of the system with Executive Board and Supervisory Board may soon intervene.

PARIS (Reuters) – Correction of a shell

If deletions of posts are needed to redress the financial situation of Areva, it will be without dismissal, said on Wednesday the Minister of labour, François Rebsamen, on France Inter.

The french nuclear group has formalized the same day of heavy losses and announced its intention to implement a € 1bn savings plan to the year 2017.

« We will follow it closely, » said François Rebsamen, who received Monday the president of Areva, Philippe Varin. « It must surely facilitate reconciliations with EDF (…) and if there were deletions of posts, this would of course without dismissal. »

At a press conference, the CEO of Areva, Philippe Knoche, stated that the Group would everything possible that staff reductions will be on voluntary basis.

The Finnish EPR from Areva will start with nine years late
◦/ 09/2014
◦Computer graphics – The new generation of Olkiluoto 3 reactor will not operate before 2018.

Major industrial accident or inevitable derives from a large-scale project? The years pass and the horizon clears very slowly over Olkiluoto 3 (OL3), the prototype of the new generation reactor EPR being built by Areva in Finland. The Group french nuclear leader warned in the night of Sunday to Monday that the plant would not commissioning before 2018, nine years behind the initial schedule. The last elements of planning dated back to December 2011: Areva hoped then a commercial start during the second half of 2014. Since then, plagued with multiple setbacks at this construction site, the french refused to communicate any agenda.

Alongside historical landslides, the invoice has exploded: provisions have been passed not less than thirteen times, for a total amount of EUR 3.9 billion. Upon arrival, OL3 will cost at least 7.4 billion euros, more than double the original quote. In July, on the occasion of the publication of half-year results, Areva had however indicated that the drift of costs was definitely stopped.

United States Obama gives to the sirens of the billionaires

Super Pacs to fund without limit the candidates.

In the heart of America? The movement of the Tea… – Voltaire network pdf

They have approximately $ 1 billion each on average, when both parties are equal, which is not often the case, if one of the 2 parts gets more money from billionaires 2, this is fucked up, but leave on the fact, that they are equal, hhhumm!

After having denounced the derives from the financing of campaigns, the president no longer hesitate to call upon the large fortunes

Their own, candidates for presidential campaigns cost $ 2.6 billion, more than $ 1 billion each (780 million euros).

Obama relapse.

Dollars for that

G. d.: Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dreamworks president (2.1 million for Obama). Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal (2.6 million for Ron Paul); Sheldon Adelson, magnate of casinos (11 million to Newt Gingrich).

How many need billionaires to buy an election ? We will soon know. In all likelihood, the 2012 election will look like a pitched battle between a group of billionaires supporting president Obama and another supporting his Republican adversary. Ah, if I understand correctly, if a billionaire Republican, or Democrat, supports such or such part, suppose that Democrat obama, if

This is perhaps the inevitable result of the grotesque in 2010 judgment by the supreme court, which opened the floodgates to the flood of money dumped into super PAC [these new-fashioned political action committees can receive unlimited donations and spend it in the election campaign]. But I’m not sure. That would have happened if Obama had held out and rejected the super PAC?

Unfortunately, the president gave on 7 February. It expressed its support to the super Cap Priorities USA Action, intended to receive unlimited amounts of money from wealthy donors in support of his candidacy. And, leaving his campaign manager, Jim Messina, and close advisers to express themselves within the framework of the events organized by this super PAC, he has ignored precautions the supreme court, who had naively believed that they wouldn’t have direct links with the candidates.

Why was it done? His campaign explained that they had been surprised by the ease with which the super PAC of the candidate for the Republican nomination Mitt Romney had allowed it to win victory in the Florida primary. They also noted the fact that the super Republican PAC had spent more than the Republican candidates themselves when the first primaries. Jim Messina argued, therefore, that the democratic camp did not intend to « unilaterally disarm » by refraining to use the same method.

I do not think that the fact that Obama refuses to involve the billionaires in his campaign would have been unilateral disarmament. The Democratic president has proven that he was a champion of fundraising, especially from small donors. In 2008 he had amassed the record sum of $ 745 million [555 million euros] thanks to an unprecedented number of modest contributions, and it has already collected more than 225 million for the 2012 campaign. If Obama had persisted in his refusal to use his own super PAC, he could avail of an argument in which almost all Americans could recognize: « a larger share of wealth and political power of the nation is now in the hands of large companies and a smaller number of people that this was the case at the time of the wild capitalism of the end of the 19th century. I will not allow that our democracy is so corrupt! I will fight to restore our democracy! »

Obama could highlight the most difficult choice to which America has faced for a century: an economy and a democracy dominated by wealthy or an economy and democracy at the service of all everyone. What better way to do this except to offer to America to choose between a democratic campaign funded by millions of small donors and a Republican campaign backed by the most powerful and the most privileged?

If Obama had adopted a firm position, I am convinced that modest Americans have flooded a stream of small contributions campaign as it would have sufficed to sweep the billionaire friends of Romney. I would have given there the opportunity to the people to be heard, and he would have won. But we will never know. Now that Obama has decided to accept the super PAC, money from the rich is there flows at an unprecedented rate. And that is the problem. When a relatively small number of super-rich Democrats decide to do battle with a handful of super-rich Republicans, the vast majority of citizens is found on the button. However, if we have now departed for an election, we will tomorrow be excluded from democracy.

Note: * Former Minister of labour of Bill Clinton, Robert Reich teaches public policy at the University of California in Berkel

Black money from the American campaign

the 23.09.2012

A protester anti-Romney, March 14, 2012 in New York. REUTERS/Mike Segar.

With the blessing of the supreme court, billionaires, business and trade unions funded Romney as Obama. No limit.AH, it is for this that some Americans, fought almost, for being the Director of campaigns of X,(je m’en rappelle plus) but that said, I understand alsothe need watered people, and candidates, because the Yankees do not directly elect their candidates, they elect first, a so-called « Grand electors » and stuff, on computer, il did not easier to eatNowadays, one can simulate what you want, I understand better why the UMP wants, that votes will be by computer, even, if it is either saying unfeasible to y penettrez, LOL, and MDR

Imagine Macif, the CGT Medef and the French billionaire Liliane Bettencourt signing cheques of several million euros to support the presidential candidates and you all understand the laws of campaign finance in the United States – or rather, what remains since a decision of the supreme court’s January 2010

Cheques can be from any source, any amount and are often secret. And this isn’t a so to speak: the American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, patron of a group of casinos in Nevada, and his wife gave $ 20 million to support the candidate in the Republican primary Newt Gingrich, whose campaign was mowed., it is the Americans who see!

An organization called American Crossroads, founded by the former lieutenant of George w. Bush , Karl Rove, has spent $ 21 million in the 2010 mid-term elections. Another, Crossroads GPS, enjoys a status of organization charity « of general interest » ‘501 (c) 4’ (‘social welfare’) that allows it to escape tax and transparency rules for the traditional political parties. We know only that it received 24 checks over $ 1 million and two over 10 million dollars in 2011. Its advertisements are masterpieces of electioneering.

American campaigns have always been the most expensive in the world, but since 2010, the deregulation of campaign finance has brought the country to a bygone age in Europe, when wealthy patrons and patrons financed political parties. In the shadow or the sight of all the American billionaires let go. They throw their sights on a candidate whose they double, from one day to the next, resources to kill his opponent. For activists of transparency, it is a return to the prehistory of democracy, when the powerful exercised a corruptive power without limit. can be type: SARKO, BIGMALION, By examples

Two separate circuits

We waited not the usa, this countryside of Mitterrand, the Kang case.

Money is rubbed by two separate circuits. The face « clear » funding obeys voted an eternity ago ceilings, in 2002, at the initiative of Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – two rather deemed elected for their independence of mind, Feingold being the only Senator to be opposed to the Patriot Act a few months earlier.

Business and trade unions do not have the right to give money directly to candidates. An individual may not, him, give over a period of two years a maximum of 5,000 dollars to a candidate and 30,400 dollars to a party. Dinner with Barack Obama costs often more than 30,000 dollars (end of July, an invitation for a dinner in New York cost 80,000 dollars per couple). In France, the limit is 7,500 euros per year and per person.

The face « obscure » was born in 2010, after a decision by the supreme court on appeal by an association, Citizens United, which had been banned by the Federal Commission of elections (CEE) to broadcast an anti-Hillary Clinton spot in 2008. The Court held that the restrictions imposed on the associations, companies and trade unions against the financing of political campaigns were unconstitutional. She opened large valves of election financing.

Money spent today by entities called « super PAC » or « 501 (c) 4 », who took their magnitude after 2010:
•«Super PAC»: individuals, companies and unions are free to contribute without limit. Donations are not anonymous and should be reported to the FEC. Everything is published online. The super PACS can spend as much as they want.
•Organizations ‘501 (c) 4’: the name corresponds to the tax category of charitable organizations, for example, environmental associations, trade unions or chambers of commerce. Individuals, businesses and unions can contribute without limit. Unlike the « super PAC », these entities are not controlled by the FEC and donations are anonymous. But to continue to escape from the FEC, they must limit their political spending 50% of the total of their expenses. A limit that associations suspect some groups do not meet in practice.

Synonymous with deregulation of freedom of expression

In theory independent candidates and parties, these « super PAC » and « 501 (c) 4 » are in fact led some aides. For the 2010 mid-term elections, they spent $ 484 million —13% of the 3.6 billion spent at the national and local levels. In the most contested States, election, a viewer will see dozens of spots per day.

For the Republicans, deregulation is synonymous with freedom of expression. Why could the billionaires not speak?

Perhaps because « those who can afford to write big checks are those that elected officials will take over the phone, they will meet at the expense of normal people who do not have the means to pay this kind of access, » explains to Slate.fr Paul Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, an association in Washington that advocates for more transparency in funding electoral and door complaint against groups suspected of fraud:

« In 2008, it is true, campaign spending had already been increased, but this was due to the increase of small donors to Barack Obama and John McCain. This year, for the Republican primary, some billionaires have helped some candidates remain in the race even though they could not achieve through donations of tens of millions of dollars. It is not known what role these big donors, and worse yet the companies, will be in the current campaign. In the current system, most of the activities that were illegal became legal, thanks to the supreme court. »

‘ This is not completely new, .adds Bob Biersack, who spent thirty years of his life to the FEC, today much-criticized.In the 1990s, the national parties could receive unlimited contributions, anyone, from businesses, trade unions… It was also possible for very rich people spending their own money (and in their own name) for or against certain candidates. This is what George Soros did in 2004. »

Hidden gifts and boxes

The difference is that today ‘ hui groups screens can collect millions without having to reveal their sources of funding. Some have a simple postal box address, forcing investigative journalists to a set of tracks to unmask their sources.

The major unions also benefit: one of the most powerful, SEIU, has for example financed a campaign highlighting an unfortunate phrase of Mitt Romney (« I am not worried for the poorest ») in a spot in Spanish pro-Obama (Mitt Romney explained in an interview that he wanted to focus on the middle class, believing that the very poor already had a safety net and that the rich did not need help).

Companies hide their gifts but leaks have established that the giant insurer Aetna gave $ 7 million to pro-republicains groups. The American, a highly politicized organization funded by large companies, Chamber of commerce announced that it would more money spend this season that she has never done before. Impossible to know who sends cheques.

But the impact it stronger is located in legislative district, where candidates for the Congress spend rarely more than one million dollars. This is that Karl Rove and his entities of the shadow play-makers of Kings. « You swing a few million dollars in an electoral district in a campaign for the House of representatives, and you change everything, » laments Bob Biersack.

This game, the Republicans explode meters. 73% of the advertising expenses of these new organizations have benefited the Conservatives since January.

And if you think that the Democrats are more « pure », think again. Barack Obama has him also his ‘super PAC’ Priorities USA Action, famous for its spots filled with so-called persons dismissed by Mitt Romney. The only difference is that he failed to raise as much money as wishes the president campaign.

Ivan Crown

The website opensecrets.org has an impressive database on election expenses and donations. Flackcheck.org offers a catalog of the most misleading advertising.


Published on January 3rd, 2012 | by Hélène Faure

Why are American Presidents elected by the electors?

When the Americans will vote in presidential elections, it is a form of indirect suffrage. They select the name of the candidate of their choice on their ballot, but the election does not allow them to directly elect the president; It allows them to elect the electors of a candidate. This means that the citizen would not vote for the candidate, but for a list of electors who undertake to elect the candidate.

The American election therefore occurs in three stages:
•Citizens move to vote on Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
•The Monday following the second Wednesday in December, large voters elect a president, according to the candidate who has obtained the majority of votes in their State.
•January 6, the House of representatives has the votes cast by the electoral College.

Note that the outcome of the election is known from the first step, since the vote of the electors is conditioned by the results obtained by a candidate in their State, based on the principle of winner take all (except in Maine and Nebraska). This principle means that all of the electoral votes of a State vote for the candidate who has obtained the majority of votes in that state – their vote is not proportional with the number of votes cast. Thus, it is sufficient that a candidate wins 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania to get all of its 21 electoral votes.

Who are these voters? The number of electoral votes of a State equals the number of members of Congress from that State. But it is never their own members of Congress. How they are chosen is determined by the law of the State, as well as by the rules of political parties. This is typically of Democrats and Republicans well implanted in the State apparatus of their party. Based on the results of a candidate in a State, it is the list of major Democratic voters or the list of Republican voters who will be mobilized in December. They will therefore vote for the candidate of their party.

This system has been much criticized, for several reasons. This electoral principle is the fact that the candidates are campaigning in some States, known as the swing states (State pivot), such as Ohio or Pennsylvania. Indeed, a large number of States are already acquired to the democratic cause (like California, for example) or Republican (like Texas). The winner take all system implies that it is up to the same candidate to obtain 51 or 80% of the vote, since only 51% of the vote to win all the electors. Therefore, the parties are campaigning in States that have them are acquired, since simply for the majority or in the States that they are sure to not win. This means that in many States, the campaign goes virtually unnoticed: candidates did never come there and do they not election advertising. In those same States, turnout is generally low, since victory is already provided at one of the two parties. The campaign focuses at the pivotal States where the two parties are close to 50%, and where everyone can reasonably hope to win.

This system is also a democratic problem: If the vote of the electors is correlated with the popular vote, it may happen that a candidate wins the popular vote without winning the majority of the electors. This is what happened to Al Gore in 2000.

Many proposals for amendments to the Constitution have been introduced in the House of representatives to reform the American electoral system. Why were these steps unsuccessful? Why elections are, even today, decided by the electors?

A federal system

The electoral college allows to protect small States, and protect the impact they have in the elections. Indeed, there are as many electoral votes as there are members of Congress (Senators + representatives). There are two Senators per State, regardless of the size of the State, while the number of representatives is proportional to the population of the State. This means that even the least populous state has at least two senators and a representative, or three members of Congress — three electors. The vote of a citizen has proportionately more weight in a small State in a large State. The electoral system ensures therefore sparsely populated States their voice, avoiding the candidates focus on the big States and urban centres.

The electoral system must therefore protect the voice of small States against the weight of the most populous States. But should especially protect States, taken as a whole, against the central Government. It allows each State to choose the electors in the way it sees fit, and to organize its own elections (including by determining the voice recording mode). The election of the President must therefore be decided at the State level, to avoid the federal nature of the United States is threatened by a too centralized government.

Constitutional theory underlying the indirect suffrage is as follows: the Congress would be composed of two chambers, the Senate, which would derive its power to the States (so the number of senators is the same for each State), and the House of representatives, which would derive its power to the people (the number of representatives is proportional to the population of a State). The President would meanwhile elected by a system that would take into account the States in their individuality in the same way as the people.

The cost of the campain

There is also a practical difficulty to the system change: according the U.S. federal election commission, Barack Obama would have spent more than 760 million for the 2008 campaign. If the cost of election campaigns is also high, this is due in part to the fact that should pay dearly videos broadcast on American television: there are no free airtime for clips of campaign as in France, for example.

The three most expensive markets in terms of airtime are in California, Texas and New York. However, these States are not the swing states : California and New York traditionally vote for Democrats in presidential elections, and Texas for the Republicans. They are also, incidentally, the States that have the most electors: 55 for California, 34 for Texas, 31 for New York.

If the United States were passing by direct suffrage, all States would be back in game – and in particular these three States, which are the three most populous States. Indeed, it would be more just to obtain the majority in a State, but rather to obtain the largest possible majority. This would incur costs of campaign much higher than what they are today…

An amendment to the Constitution

Added to this practical difficulty is a legal difficulty. Even if a majority of Americans favor a passage by direct suffrage according to Galluppolls, such a change would involve amending the Constitution. Indeed, it is well in article 2, section 1 of this text that described the electoral system:

The Executive power will be conferred to a president of the United States of America. It shall remain in office for a period of four years and will, as well as the vice-president chosen for the same term, elected as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in the manner prescribed by the legislature, a number of electors equal to the total number of Senators and representatives to which he is entitled to the Congress, but no Senator or representative, or any person taking the United States one burden of trust or profit, cannot be appointed elector.

However, any amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by two thirds of the representatives and two-thirds of the senators, and then by three-quarters of the State legislatures. This implies a near-consensus that the change in the electoral system is far from encourage. This is all the more true in that small States would therefore lose some of their electoral weight: from a political point of view, it is unlikely that they make this choice. The American electoral system anchored in the constitutional tradition, has already survived the crisis caused by the election of Bush in 2000; in all likelihood, he will still survive a large number of elections.

Now, I understand better why, Americans can do not directly elect their president, because the constitution was written by francs macon, not that, but most (the founding fathers gathered to the signing of the Constitution of United States..) Moreover, many fathers were members of Freemasonry.) According to the famous formula ofAbraham Lincoln (16e President of United States from 1860 to 1865), democracy is ‘ Government of the people, by the people, for the people ‘. This is one of the canonical definitions, which I think is an aberration this, as enacted, that the U.S. constitution, which is no more, nor less a barrage tuned to the way of the people, knowing, that in France and the EU for the cantonal elections (Doubs), and for the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, only soits so-called electors voting at our placeas SARKOZY has done to the Treaty of Lisbon among others. This means simply, as says JJ ROUSSEAU sovereignty cannot be represented by the same reason that it cannot be alienated; it consists essentially in the General will and the General will is point, therefore, that wants to say that the U.S. constitution is an aberration to the sovereignty of the American people, are prevented from voting, car in his book « the sources of America », Corine Lesnes, corresponding the world in Washington, talks about the origin of the electoral system. She note that in defining the political institutions at the end of the 18th century, the founding fathers « did not believe that the voice of the people was infallible »., this under heard what? that their lyrics were better, or that their voices were better that that of the people, you do not tell me that if America, this beautiful country, is in a shit , without no, that is not the fault of the masons Franks, who wrote the constitution of the United States,the famous founders, because little by little,America’s debt is such that it cannot pay, although is is his dollars will be worth nothing more,quite simply, only able to think of it, In Congress, there are 2 groups of Republican billionaires and Democrats, which pull the FLOSS multi-billion, from the other side, a head of State Democrat once and once other, Republican, (you are going to say, Yes, but a supreme court that against balance, AH Yes, it is that the supreme court can intervene, that said Congress may also intervene in the decisions of the supreme court) , article 3 of the constitution, AH!She is beautiful, balance, that is what is balanced appeal powers, it is pretty darn balance, « you know my little, I should say my great OBAMA, your thing on health, ca please not we, but then not at all, if they are well cared for, there will be fewer deaths, but you realize what this can do demographically Mr OBAMA , AH good, Ben me who believed that, BEN, not!Damage Eliane, it, it’s the balance.

Some, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), consider that democracy can be direct :  » sovereignty cannot be represented by the same reason that it cannot be alienated; It consists essentially in the General will and the General will is point. » In General, a Government is democratic as opposed to the monarchical systems on the one hand, where the power is held by a single, and on the other hand to oligarchic, systems where the power is held by a group restricted individuals,examples, billionaires, who want to make rain and good weather, but that bother with their population, and their paythat they will lose force, they want a war, I do not think this is, one war civil or otherwise, but rather economic, on which, unfortunately, they went very badly, that said, it’s me, which said ca. Definitely this JJ Rousseau was right on, the entire line

Why it is so complicated to elect an American president – Rue89…

United States of America, the constitutional system – denistouret.net

The EU Council endorse the procedure for authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the territory of the European Union.

| Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:30 pm

The European Council gave its approval Monday to the new procedure for authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the territory of the European Union . A procedure that allows now European countries wishing to ban the cultivation of GMOs in them. Conversely, this should allow those wishing to get out of the current deadlock. NOT COOL at all, it will grown in Romania, example, and we will sell the products, in France, Germany and others, in countries, which do not want, it is force the hand to the countries, who do not want, when is that it breaks from those mentally ill, ca, spanking, Act macron, this Act of GMOs, they really want , fluff us, no matter what, strongly, that it breaks

The cause of the debt of France, it is the Rothschild law May 15, 2010 20:03

We are one
Langue source

Alors ,ne sachant plus ,quoi ,inventer ,MARISSOL TOURAINE et VALLS (oui ,je dis VALLS parce que l’on se doute bien ,qu’elle n’y a pas pensé toute seule) ,ils nous remettent sur le tapis ,le paquet neutre et le médicament unique pour emmerder le monde sachant pertinemment ,que cela ne fera pas avancés d’un poil ,le schmiblick et que l’on n’en veut pas ni de l’un


Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s