Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "American Voting"

Original Song Title:

"California Dreaming"

Original Performer:

The Mamas and Papas

Parody Song Title:

"American Voting"

Parody Written by:

Susanna Viljanen

The Lyrics

The majority vote in US seems quite strange for us Europeans, who are accustomed on relative vote.
All the minds are dire
and too insecure
Nobody really knows
what is come for sure

Should I vote the Dems?
Is GOP my call?
American voting -
where winner takes it all

Stopped now at the booth
I passed along the way
Oh, the choices are so slim
they all look the same

It's either Flaky Party
or the one that's Mean
American voting -
or should I vote the Greens?

All the votes are wasted
and the bell will toll
If your party loses -
winner takes it all

Majority vote -
divides the field in two
American voting -
is there a better way to do?

American voting -
is there a better way to do?
I would personally find very difficult to select between the Mean Party (GOP) and the Flaky Party (Dems). I would not like to give my vote for either to the religious right and filthy rich pigs - or to loud big-government freeeloaders and professional whiners. Neither of them really answer on issues I'd consider important. Meanwhile, the "winner-takes-it-all" principle ensures the political map will divide into a strict two-party system where those candidates who buy neither of the parties' values find extremely difficult to get their voices heard. Voting a minority party, such as Libertarians or Greens, will mean essentially wasting your vote.

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 

In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.

Voting Results

Pacing: 3.8
How Funny: 3.6
Overall Rating: 3.8

Total Votes: 8

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   2
 2   0
 3   1
 4   0
 5   5

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

Paul Robinson - November 07, 2006 - Report this comment
It's hard to believe now, Susanna, but at ONE time it actually worked pretty well...both parties tended to lean towards the center in the nominating process...ironically, what changed that was a move that most supposed would make the Party Primary selection process more democratic...the Convention delegates for each party USED to be selected by a caucus of party leaders within each State, who then went to the Convention. If no candidate had a majority the decision was eventually made in "smoke-filled back rooms". These were selections were generally very pragmatic...hence, they leaned towards the center. However, the folks involved in the selection process generally excluded women and people of seemed a good idea to change that to a popular vote contest for the primary...and perhaps THAT is where a proportional system should have been installed to replace the "Winner-take-all" rule. What has happened is the most extreme elements of each party, because they are generally more dedicated and vociferous have taken control of these processes...leading to absurd selections like you-know-who, among others. I don't really know...but I DO know that the current "Winner-take-all" rule in State Primaries has led us to folks like the current "Mr. You-Know-Who' (I can barely utter his name without going apoplectic these days) getting the nomination of a major party...and that's a freaking crime...I don't know who or where most of the blame lies, you would have to parcel it out between the parties themselves, the media - for their "horse race" type of campaign reporting, and, of course, the public, for putting up with it and then making dismal particular responding to "fear" arguments...especially those "fear" arguments of those who failed to pay attention and do their jobs in the first place...but that last part is just my own someone who HAS been paying attention to the world's events since I was about 11. Point of reference, that goes back to John F. Kennedy...OH...yeah...5's for you here ~ ~ ~
Meriadoc - November 07, 2006 - Report this comment
When we are up against Al Qaeda I'll pick 'mean' over 'flakey' any day. ;-)
MasonR - November 07, 2006 - Report this comment
Having recently been involved in an organizational vote that used a form of relative voting, I certainly see the point of moving away from "winner takes all" to get a broader representation of what the electorate really wants. The complication is the primary process, which winnows out good people for the wrong reasons and then we're left with...Bush and Kerry.
DD - November 07, 2006 - Report this comment
There is much to criticize about all American political parties, and your mean/flaky verse does a good job of poking fun at the stereotypes. But countries that do not have "winner take all" election allocations seem to end up with some very odd coalitions that, I don't think, are more effective than ours. Good parody, but I had a problem with the pacing because, while America and California can both be pronounced with 4 syllables, they are stressed differently.
Susanna Viljanen - November 08, 2006 - Report this comment
Meriadoc, that would be exactly my problem as well - how to be tough to warmongers, criminals and terrorists, and compassionate to social issues, like education, employment and health care? If I am to be asked, this is one of the bottlenecks of the "winner-takes-it-all" system. Since human beings seldom are black-and-white while parties often are, the winner-takes-it-all leaves too often good candidates of the losing side stranded. Now as it seems the Flaky Party has won, will it mean a signal for al-Qaida to attack?
Paul Robinson - November 08, 2006 - Report this comment
Susanna, it is the hope here, at least from me, that BOTH parties act responsibly now. Personally, I'm having a hard time picturing the Republicans doing that, what with the way they have comported themselves to date. I think the Democrats would be fools (time will tell on that) to take too extreme a position, but that doesn't mean they must be subservient to the White House, since the main reason they prevailed seems to have been the Voting Public's rejection of Mr. Bush's policies and other Republican malfeasance. This was a group that really overplayed their hand...they had very, very slim majorities, but in every branch, and they really tried to play it to the hilt. I don't think it's healthy for a 51% to try to lord over the 49% (not exact percentages, just a way of addressing it). With that in mind the Dems may not be all that ready to "make nice" just right now. "Pay-back" could be an operative word, and as long as it doesn't infringe on important issues I think it's more than a little appropriate. Expect some of the Office location assignments on Capitol Hill to be drastically changed, for one thing...
sutter lee - November 07, 2016 - Report this comment
Eve of November 2016 dreaded election. ISO a parody, which is theme for a music circle tonite (any topic), and I'd procrastinated, so this is PERFECT. A tune I know well, and easy chords. Thanks.

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 1423