To all USA Mofos

[Hondo333]

Now I am not going Django on you. and I am not having a go at your government or anybody but I just want to hear your individual opinion on how you feel living in country lead government who got into power "illegally"?

[Yoda]

Well, first, I'd like to hear your individual opinion as to why you believe our current government came into power illegally. Because, as you might have guessed, not everyone here agrees.

[Sir Toose]

Uh oh.

Open that can gently... there's an unreasonable amount of whoopass in it.

:D

Let's have it, sonny... what's your problem with the election?

[Golgot]

Shall i cut and paste some of my old posts? Shall i shall i? *pant pant sniff-nearby-crotch pee-on-bush-family-tree* ;) Tell you what, i'll keep my doggy-debating side in check until Hondo states his case - then, let's release the dogs-of-piece-by-piece-dismemberment :) [not that there's any new facts in really - i just reckon there are far more that suggest foul play than fair]

[Sir Toose]

No.

Make them much shorter, and to the point.

You have some great thoughts, bro... it just takes you for****ingever to get there.

:D

[Piddzilla]

It's the ganja...

;D

[Golgot]

It's the ganja...

;D

I don't have any dammit! :) (getting some tonight tho - bad dog, back in your basket)

And Tooselator - i think my ramblings on this subject are actually the most concise and purely factual i've ever acheived :) Nice to know you dug deep and cut through the creeping vines of my mind tho, even when i've been out of line :) (hey, i've stopped winking. Maybe it was the ganj after all ;) - oops, no, i remember now, i'm just overly saracastic [wow, this short term memory thing is cool])

[Sir Toose]

I don't have any dammit! :) (getting some tonight tho - bad dog, back in your basket)

And Tooselator - i think my ramblings on this subject are actually the most concise and purely factual i've ever acheived :) Nice to know you dug deep and cut through the creeping vines of my mind tho, even when i've been out of line :) (hey, i've stopped winking. Maybe it was the ganj after all ;) - oops, no, i remember now, i'm just overly saracastic [wow, this short term memory thing is cool])


I think you're going to have to pass the bud before I agree to this conversation. :p

[Golgot]

I think you're going to have to pass the bud before I agree to this conversation. :p

Ok, but those air-stewerdesses tend to Bogart it on the way over. Blaming the air-conditioning like they do - shameless. (are we off topic here? :) - i was going to cobble something together about Enron and drug-deregulation, but why tax yerself eh? Hey! That was vaguely relevant :))

EDIT: Oops, forgot to pass on a compliment too. I find your thinking style, dumb-feigning guile and most reasonable riledness very refreshing indeed (and where would my mind-glue posts be without the acetate clarity of posters like thee? With your emotions in motion but not swamping your clarity. Always a pleasure to share mind-tea with you sir :yup: - Tomas)

[The Silver Bullet]

Because, as you might have guessed, not everyone here agrees.
You're a psychotic. Calm down.
It was a question, not an accusation.

[Yoda]

You're a psychotic. Calm down.Yeah, because "not everyone agrees" is just seething with anger, right? Pfft.It was a question, not an accusation.Actually, it was a question based on a presupposition. He didn't ask us if we thought our current government had come into power legitimately; he stated that it hadn't, and asked us how we felt about that.

So, you're right on one count: it wasn't an accusation. It was, however, an assumption.

[The Silver Bullet]

It was, however, an assumption.
I don't believe I said it wasn't.

[Yoda]

I don't believe I said it wasn't.
You're right, you didn't. And I didn't say it was an accusation; nor do I think I particularly treated it like one.

[LordSlaytan]

Hey you two, knock it off! When are you just going to admit that you're in love with each other, and kiss and make up?

[Kong]

Florida was a fiasco. People who shouldn't have been barred from the polls were. The voting system failed. The fact that a private company was given the job of purging the voter lists is scary, and shameful. Something should be done, but it's unlikely that anything will be. Kong would probably be even more mad than he is, but he lives in a state where his vote for president doesn't count towards the election anyways so exerting alot of energy towards this debate won't actually provide Kong with a real vote.

What's even worse than craziness of the last presidential election is the general apathy towards it. So, to answer your question: Kong isn't proud that his country, at best, had a rather fishy election, but he's even less proud of the fact that so many of its people don't care.

[The Silver Bullet]

...nor do I think I particularly treated it like one.
Slaytan telling us to knock it off aside:

Maybe I just read it that way.
That being the way you wrote it and all.

[Piddzilla]

I don't see why Hondo should have to explain why the election was illegal. It is obvious that his question was a rethorical one and the quoting marks around the word "illegally" underlines that. It should not be any doubt about what he means and what he is curious to find out.

Apparantly he (and me with him) wonders why americans seems to take the farce that was the election so lightly. I mean, even if "your man" won, you must be concerned about how easy it is for mistakes to happen with this system and to manipulate with the votes.

I also understand the frustration that Kong feels about going to the polling station knowing that your vote most likely will not count - this time either.

[Sir Toose]

I don't think it was a farce.

The facts are that:

1). The whole voting system in Florida (chads and all) was designed by democrats who ONLY had a problem with it after the votes were cast. Would they have had a problem supporting it if Gore had won?

2). The recount was done using GORE's recount standard.

3). If the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme court had not been nullified by the US supreme court, Bush would have tripled his margin. As it stood, he still won.

4). The ballot review board said that Bush's lead was 537 votes. If the counties with manual counts had not been exempted from recount the official error margin was 1128 votes in Bush's favor. Adding that all up would have given Bush a 1665 vote lead versus the 537 he is credited with.

[Kong]

I don't think it was a farce.

The facts are that:

1). The whole voting system in Florida (chads and all) was designed by democrats who ONLY had a problem with it after the votes were cast. Would they have had a problem supporting it if Gore had won?

Kong's never heard of this fact before, but it is an irrelevant fact anyways.. A poorly designed system is poorly designed regardless of its designer. It also doesn't matter if democrats would or wouldn't have complained had Gore won the election, because winning by mechanical errors, regardless of who it is that wins, undermines the entire spirit of a public election.

2). The recount was done using GORE's recount standard.

Again, whose system was used is irrelevant. The question is not "Who designed this system?", but "Is this system fair and accurate?" Either way, the recount isn't what made the election a "farce". What makes it a farce is that tens of thousands of people were unfairly barred from voting by a private firm that was supposed to be watched by Katherine Harris, and, demographically speaking, most of the barred voters would have voted democrat.

[Sir Toose]

Kong's never heard of this fact before, but it is an irrelevant fact anyways.. A poorly designed system is poorly designed regardless of its designer. It also doesn't matter if democrats would or wouldn't have complained had Gore won the election, because winning by mechanical errors, regardless of who it is that wins, undermines the entire spirit of a public election.

Well said. A mechanical malfunction is different than an abuse of power which is what is implied by the spirit of the thread. In any case, Bush was agreeable to the many recounts and agreed to do it Gore's way. I don't see how he can be accused of electioneering.



Again, whose system was used is irrelevant. The question is not "Who designed this system?", but "Is this system fair and accurate?" Either way, the recount isn't what made the election a "farce". What makes it a farce is that tens of thousands of people were unfairly barred from voting by a private firm that was supposed to be watched by Katherine Harris, and, demographically speaking, most of the barred voters would have voted democrat.

Those votes you are referring to are the people who didn't show up to vote in the election. How was it unfair? You may be more knowledgeable on the specifics of that and could sway me...but from my current understanding I don't see how it's unfair.

[Golgot]

some specifics...

Here's a heavily edited previous post (that fulfills your criteria i believe Sir T ;) :p )

On the prevention of huge numbers of valid voters from voting:

I have a report from a tv program here called Newsnight (one of the top sobre and reputable ones), where US correspondant Greg Palast found some interesting things in Florida.

They claim that "22,000 black and mostly democratic voters were excluded from the electoral rolls by the private company that compiled them" i.e. Data Base Technologies.

The D.B.T. debacle:

Clayton Roberts agreed to have an interview for the program (he's Harris' Director of Elections. The same Harris who was Co-Chair of GW's Presidential Campaign btw. No conflict of interests there then). However, when they revealed that they had "obtained" a copy of the contract between Jeb's Division of Elections and DBT, Roberts looked very worried indeed and refused to continue. Here's why....

The documents they obtained seem to state that DBT is responsible for verifying that the lists they compile of felons-not-able-to-vote are accurate.

The first list they released contained 8,000 names submitted from Texas by GW's "state officials". "Almost none" were felons according to the program. Local officials apparently "raised a ruckus" and DBT issued a new list - naming 58, 000 felons in total. The one county (they dont say/I'm not sure which) that went to the expense of checking their list name by name found it was 95% inaccurate.

That's a lot of innocent people being branded criminals/loosing their votes, if it's true. Worrying. People with similar surnames and dates of birth apparently got caught in the net and weren't checked.

The only later comments to come out of DBT were:

Vice-President, Mr Lee, who said DBT and Clayton Roberts would have liked to have more names on the list.

Roberts admitted off camera that he never checked if DBT were checking the lists properly.


[I]On the dodgy mechanics and recounts:

I know little. Just that... Harris apparently blocked recounts/handcounts in Gabston after a technical failure meant 1 in 8 votes wasn't getting counted. The program alleges a 700 vote profit to Gore was lost here.

You guys know a lot more about the blow-by-blow of the recount scenarios tho - i dare say this was included in the final recounted total.

I'll check up on some other stuff i've read about some of the design for the failed voting-system being done by an ex-Republican, who became a Democrat, and then dropped out right after the election and became and indedpendant. Whether that's relevant or not i'll try and find out :).

[Sir Toose]

You know, This all passed the Florida supreme court as well as the US supreme court. I suppose if I'm bothered by the first post it's because it suggests that Bush is illegally in office (as if a law were broken).

I can see the confusion and the reasons some have for disputing what happened. On the other hand, to me, I don't see any real wrongdoing.


http://www.covenantnews.com/winner2.jpg


Hmmm wonder what this voter 'felt'... perhaps he was coerced... ;D

[Golgot]

I can see the confusion and the reasons some have for disputing what happened. On the other hand, to me, I don't see any real wrongdoing.


Oh Mr T. You don't see any problems with huge numbers of voters having their vote removed unjustifiably? Coz that seems to be what's happened.

You know, This all passed the Florida supreme court as well as the US supreme court.

Here are Moore's interesting snipes at the recount blockings and at one of the Supreme Courts (not sure which - Florida or National)

Justices with Dodgy connections:

-Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor and Nixon appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their 70s, Moore alledges they wanted to see a Republican government continuing their ideas b4 they retired to Arizona (O'Connor was heard lamentingat a party in Georgetown that she couldn't hold on for another 4 or 8 years).

-Two other Justices with extrem r-wing views are:
-Virginia Lamp Thomas who worked for leading conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation. (hired by GW to help recruit people to serve in the impending admin)
-Eugene Scalia was a lawyer with the law firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher - the very law firm representing Bush b4 the SC.

The Miami Heralds' Take on things:

-They ran a story entitled "Review of ballots finds Bush's win would have endured manual recount". But inside the article were these snippets:
"Bush's lead would have vanished if the recount had been conducted under the severely restrictive standards that some Republicans advocated....The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervotee...[Under] the most inclusive standard that is [i.e. one that represents the will of all of the people] Gore would have won by 393 votes....On ballots that [suggested] a fault with either machine or the voter's ability to use it...Gore would have won by 299 votes"

-NB that by 2pm on 12/9/2000 Gore was only "66 votes behind and gaining" according to tv etc. The SC stopped the recount at 2.45pm (his suggestion here is that someone was trying to prevent the words "Al Gore is in the lead" getting onto TV - the Bush at Fox also seemed to be instrumental in announcing Bush as the winner b4 the votes were conclusive etc.)

Ok, i'll stop there for now (tho apparently only 2 Dems were on the commitee that designed the butterfly ballots etc - one of them being this Republican-Democrat-Independant Theresa LePore)

I suppose if I'm bothered by the first post it's because it suggests that Bush is illegally in office (as if a law were broken).

Sure, many people outside the US seem to believe he didn't win legally. It's normally based on vague impressions of the voter-blockings, the influences of other Bushes, the possiblity of Supreme Court dodginess etc etc. So they shouldn't say illegal perhaps. Just highly immoral and detrimental to democracy :p :) [however - Harris's decision to state that ballots "are not required to be postmarked on or prior to" election day was illegal. And this allowed certain illegal inclusions that apparently favoured Bush - for example: 183 overseas votes with US postmarks were accepted; 169 ballots from unregistered voters; 19 overseas voters voted on two ballots and had both counted etc. And Harris's computer all on why she decided to change the law illegally got erased - a possible violation of Florida's Sunshine Laws :)]

A major problem that our politicans (and indeed us ourselves) need to address is the ridiculously slanted nature of our voting systems in the US and UK. I don't understand all the nuances, but i think 'd rather have a vote that contributed to the party/policies i preferred, rather than my region alone (with all the imbalances inherent in regional systems - voting Green in my area helped the local-rep get 0.1% of the vote - but didn't inch its way onto the G's final registering score. All i wanted them to do was push the green agenda on the economically-competant/robust/viable parties)

At the very least Tooster - our electoral systems need a massive re-think to make them more representational of people's wishes.

[nebbit]

Shall i cut and paste some of my old posts? Shall i shall i? *pant pant sniff-nearby-crotch pee-on-bush-family-tree* ;) Tell you what, i'll keep my doggy-debating side in check until Hondo states his case - then, let's release the dogs-of-piece-by-piece-dismemberment :) [not that there's any new facts in really - i just reckon there are far more that suggest foul play than fair]

Golgot, I impressed by your restraint, I can tell you have been working on your O.C.D. :laugh: :love:

Uh OH, I spoke too soon! ;D

[LordSlaytan]

Slaytan telling us to knock it off aside:

I wasn't serious, bud. I was thinking of Kramer as I read your bantering.

[projectMayhem]

Beinga resident of Florida, that whole election was a crock of sh**, I wasn't even old enough to vote at the time and I felt like a moron for just living here. All the recounts and revotes, all that crap was such a hassle. The thing though was that anyone not living in Florida thought it was the voters' faults when it was the entire system. Anyways I just hope this crap doesn't happen again come election time.

[Yoda]

Florida was a fiasco. People who shouldn't have been barred from the polls were. The voting system failed. The fact that a private company was given the job of purging the voter lists is scary, and shameful. Something should be done, but it's unlikely that anything will be. Kong would probably be even more mad than he is, but he lives in a state where his vote for president doesn't count towards the election anyways so exerting alot of energy towards this debate won't actually provide Kong with a real vote.
It's not just unlikely that anything will be done...I'd submit that it's unlikely anything can be done. Keeping track of votes sounds simple enough, but on a scale of this size, problems will always exist.

My philosophy is simple: every significantly sized election in every significantly sized country has a buttload of problems with their voting process, but few elections are so simultaneously close and momentous as this one was, therefore magnifying every mistake, even though many were probably standard election fare for a country this size.

That said, yes, Florida was a bit of a fiasco. When everything's a big mess, though, it's not particularly sensible to scream "fraud!" The worst thing you can say about the Bush administration is that they may not have truly won (though I think several recounts all coming out on their side suggests otherwise). If you're going to criticize the election for being so confusing and messy, it doesn't make much sense to turn around and claim that the wrong person won, which many seem to do these days.

Not that you have, of course. It's just a very popular lapse in logic, is all.

[Herod]

Now I am not going Django on you. and I am not having a go at your government or anybody but I just want to hear your individual opinion on how you feel living in country lead government who got into power "illegally"?

****** ****ing Aussies.

[Piddzilla]

It's not just unlikely that anything will be done...I'd submit that it's unlikely anything can be done.

It is pretty simple actually:

One man = one vote. Everybody over, what is it, 18 years old get to vote. You have two kinds of ballot - one with the republican canditate's name on and one with the democrat's candidate's name on. The ballots and the enveloped they go in look the same all over America. Then the candidate that gets the majority of the votes becomes the president. How hard can it be?

[Hondo333]

****** ****ing Aussies.

Herod........ your a wanker :rolleyes:

Thanks to all the people that replied responseably(spelling), either for and against the bush governmet, i really just wanted to know how you feel (Thanks Kong for the perfect Response).

[Yoda]

It is pretty simple actually:

One man = one vote. Everybody over, what is it, 18 years old get to vote. You have two kinds of ballot - one with the republican canditate's name on and one with the democrat's candidate's name on. The ballots and the enveloped they go in look the same all over America. Then the candidate that gets the majority of the votes becomes the president. How hard can it be?
It sounds simple enough, but from what I understand the places that have actually employed this simple, straight-up form of Democracy are often left with problems. I hear that this is because such a system is more ripe for abuse, but I haven't verifited that.

It's also less representative of all areas of the nation. IE: the most populace state essentially runs the country. The Founding Fathers did what they did for a reason.

[Golgot]

My philosophy is simple: every significantly sized election in every significantly sized country has a buttload of problems with their voting process, but few elections are so simultaneously close and momentous as this one was, therefore magnifying every mistake, even though many were probably standard election fare for a country this size.

That said, yes, Florida was a bit of a fiasco. When everything's a big mess, though, it's not particularly sensible to scream "fraud!" The worst thing you can say about the Bush administration is that they may not have truly won (though I think several recounts all coming out on their side suggests otherwise.

I think the DBT thing suggests something beyond vote-tracking complexity. It looks like either huge incompetence, or potentially a strategy for setting the odds in this vital state in the Rep's favour (Harris's request for very broad criteria seems unwarrented - i.e. including people with "similar" names and the same birthdays as felons. I'm still not sure who analysed the lists and/or concluded it excluded more Dem voters than Reps - but i believe that demographically more black and hispanic people have criminal records, and they are also more likely to vote Dem, so the similar-names thing seems suspicious to me)

That said, i certainly can't decide who won these days :) :confused:
However, I'd still say Harris's dual roles are a conflict of interests (i.e. being Florida secretary of state in charge of elections under Jeb AND Co-chair of GW's Presidential Campaign. That looks very bad. And her changing/ignoring-of-the-law concerning post-dating and the corresponding "loss" of computer information needs explaining.)

Overall i'd say these things point a bit more to fraud than mere confusion.

[Piddzilla]

It sounds simple enough, but from what I understand the places that have actually employed this simple, straight-up form of Democracy are often left with problems. I hear that this is because such a system is more ripe for abuse, but I haven't verifited that.

We don't have a presidential election in Sweden - we only vote for political parties. But we have that kind of system for our parliament elections and it works great. And we also have around 80% of the voters going to the polling stations every election.

It's also less representative of all areas of the nation. IE: the most populace state essentially runs the country. The Founding Fathers did what they did for a reason.

I think this is correct - when it comes to electing representatives for your Congress and Senate. But the president represents the entire USA and therefore every single american's vote should be counted as one vote no matter where he lives and what the majority of his state votes like. Sure, you can't get around the fact that Bush is from Texas, but in the end he doesn't represent a specific state but all of USA. To make every single vote count is a hell of a lot more fair than just throwing away all the votes that weren't part of the majority of a single state.

And the states with the largest populations run USA allready - with or without this system.

[Golgot]

I agree completly!!!! Very Well said. It is like you ripped it straight from my mind.

Erm, number 1 isn't true - and the other three ignore the un-democratic, and possibly illegal, whoesale removal of thousands of names from the voting lists - the majority of whom we can demographically assume would have voted Democrat. So Bush's win is still in doubt. See posts above for more details.

[Yoda]

We don't have a presidential election in Sweden - we only vote for political parties. But we have that kind of system for our parliament elections and it works great. And we also have around 80% of the voters going to the polling stations every election.
Exactly; you only vote for political parties. You, like us, have a level of abstraction in the voting process. Show me one thriving Democracy (of any significant size) that operates under straight-up Democracy.
I think this is correct - when it comes to electing representatives for your Congress and Senate. But the president represents the entire USA and therefore every single american's vote should be counted as one vote no matter where he lives and what the majority of his state votes like. Sure, you can't get around the fact that Bush is from Texas, but in the end he doesn't represent a specific state but all of USA. To make every single vote count is a hell of a lot more fair than just throwing away all the votes that weren't part of the majority of a single state.
What's "fair" is whatever helps the country operate as smoothly as possible, while still generally preserving the will of the people. And our Republic does just that. It's not perfect, admittedly (no form of government ever will be, in my mind), but historically it beats the more simple alternative, hands down.
And the states with the largest populations run USA allready - with or without this system.
Goodness, no. Gore won California, Pennsylvania, and New York (three of our largest states, all rich with electoral votes), and still managed to lose the election.

[Golgot]

Exactly; you only vote for political parties. You, like us, have a level of abstraction in the voting process. Show me one thriving Democracy (of any significant size) that operates under straight-up Democracy.

Soz to butt in, butt what exactly does one-man-one-vote/"straight-up Democracy" involve then? (i soooo need to do some reading)

Everyone's vote counting equally? [i.e. with the differentations between states etc filtered out/removed?] Only having two voting options? Que?

My vague impression is that a good system would be one where your vote goes to the party, not your local state/borough/representative etc - i.e. your vote then contributes to a picture of the overall will of the people, unfiltered by the size/tactical-importance of voting blocks. We vote for local governing bodies anyway [when "we" can be bothered to ;). But perhaps a two-tiered local-vs-national power system of elected bodies would be interesting i.e. local representatives having their own "house", negotiating local issues with the party-reps in main governing house, who are dealing with national issues. O'course the local-reps would be affiliated to parties too probably, - but that'd lend an alternative dynamic, and there might be more leeway for special issues groups to get representation. That's how Hitler cropped up too in some ways, but there you go. Gotta stay on you're toes ;)]

Anyways, that's my vague ponder on it.

I'm confused on the US system too by the way. You elect both "houses" don't you? (i.e. unlike us with our semi-heridatory back-slapping peers. Some of whom are alright ;))

So how does it all work? You're basically voting for parties when you vote for presidents right? And that leads to the various numbers of representatives in one of the houses? The Senate? Or is it Congress? And if any of that's the case, how do you vote for the other "house"? Or is it voted for internally by the other House? Or what?

Help me out here. I am all adrift in ignorance (s'quite nice actually ;))

[Piddzilla]

Exactly; you only vote for political parties. You, like us, have a level of abstraction in the voting process. Show me one thriving Democracy (of any significant size) that operates under straight-up Democracy.

Switzerland. (Except the fact that women weren't allowed to vote until just recently of course.. ;) )

I don't know what you are talking about but I was talking about the bills with the candidate's name on (the party's name in Sweden's case) that you put in the box when you vote.

What's "fair" is whatever helps the country operate as smoothly as possible, while still generally preserving the will of the people. And our Republic does just that.

That is purely subjective and only your opinion. You call the last election smooth?

It's not perfect, admittedly (no form of government ever will be, in my mind), but historically it beats the more simple alternative, hands down.

I think our election system beats the crap out of your system, and 80% of the swedish voters actually voting against your 50% is proof of that. (The presidential election that is, the election for the House of Representatives - or what it's called - was more around 30-35%, wasn't it).

Goodness, no. Gore won California, Pennsylvania, and New York (three of our largest states, all rich with electoral votes), and still managed to lose the election.

So you mean, every time New York votes for "the loser" they stop being one of the most influential and powerful states in America?

We seem to be talking about different things....

[Yoda]

Switzerland. (Except the fact that women weren't allowed to vote until just recently of course.. ;) )
Are you sure they qualify? I believe Switzerland elects a Parliament, which then elects a Federal Assembly, the members of which take turns, as it were, in the big seat. It's really not terribly unlike the electoral college, when you boil it down, and certainly qualifies as a layer of abstraction between the executive branch and the populace.

I don't know what you are talking about but I was talking about the bills with the candidate's name on (the party's name in Sweden's case) that you put in the box when you vote.
I don't follow what you mean. Would you mind elaborating?

That is purely subjective and just your opinion. You call the last election smooth?
No, I don't. But then again, I'm not trying to make the case that our system is perfect. Just that it's sensible. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will make the right choice in every referendum. Similarly, the American Republic should not expect that every election will go off without a hitch; especially when the nation is as large as it is now.

As messy as the election might have been, I see no reason to place the blame for it at the feet of the electoral college. What's more, anyone with even a cursory view of modern American politics (which I imagine you have) can plainly see that the 2000 Presidental Election was an abberation.I think our election system beats the crap out of your system, and 80% of the swedish voters actually voting against your 50% is proof of that. (The presidential election that is, the election for the House of Representatives - or what it's called - was more around 30-35%, wasn't it).
It isn't "proof" of that in the least. The only thing it's proof of is voter apathy. While it's possible that our government structure may contribute to that apathy, I see no reason to simply assume that it is so.

Our population, for example, could play a major role. There are over 30 times as many people living in America as there are living in Sweden. The more densely populated Britain, I believe, also laga behind you in terms of voter turnout. It stands to reason that, the larger the population of a country, the less interest the average voter would have.Which, ironically, is an argument in favor of the electoral college. Even the closest of Presidental elections here will be decided by at least half a million votes; not exactly motivation to get up and cast your ballot. But, under our current system, several states in the last election were decided by no more than a few thousand, or less. Clearly, a system like this encourages voter turnout when compared to a simple nationwide vote-off.

My old man is of the persuasion that lower voter turnout generally coincidences with wealth. A generally content people with a high standard of living have far less reason to get out and initiate change in their government than a people who are oppressed or living in relative poverty. The strong turnout in California for the recall election seems to support this notion.

So you mean, every time New York votes for "the loser" they stop being one of the most influential and powerful states in America?
It depends entirely on what you mean by "influential and powerful." Culturally, and financially, what happens in New York undoubtedly effects a significant portion of our nation. But Presidentially, having the whole of NY on your side does not in the least guarantee you victory, as countless Presidential elections show.

We seem to be talking about different things....
Could be. Feel free to clarify anything at anytime.

[Piddzilla]

Are you sure they qualify? I believe Switzerland elects a Parliament, which then elects a Federal Assembly, the members of which take turns, as it were, in the big seat. It's really not terribly unlike the electoral college, when you boil it down, and certainly qualifies as a layer of abstraction between the executive branch and the populace.

I said it a bit ironically, but it is a fact that Switzerland has a tradition of making decisions on a regional level by gathering (the men) on the town square and voting by raising hands.

I don't follow what you mean. Would you mind elaborating?

I am talking about the actual physical votes, man!! The pieces of paper you put in envelopes and put in that box!! If the piece of paper says nothing but "Bob" or "The Coca Cola Party", how hard can it be to count them without having a Florida syndrome??

No, I don't. But then again, I'm not trying to make the case that our system is perfect. Just that it's sensible. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will make the right choice in every referendum. Similarly, the American Republic should not expect that every election will go off without a hitch; especially when the nation is as large as it is now.

What it should guarantee is that the choice being made is actually representative for the american people. I argue for that your system works against that choice being made correctly. Not because I think the result isn't representative, but because I think it is wrong that all votes are not being counted and that this traditionally bounded system cause apathy among the voters which leads to them not going to the voting polls.

As messy as the election might have been, I see no reason to place the blame for it at the feet of the electoral college. What's more, anyone with even a cursory view of modern American politics (which I imagine you have) can plainly see that the 2000 Presidental Election was an abberation.

What does "abberation" mean?

It isn't "proof" of that in the least. The only thing it's proof of is voter apathy. While it's possible that our government structure may contribute to that apathy, I see no reason to simply assume that it is so.

Having no more than two major political parties and no more than two president candidates is one political party and one president candidate away from dictatorship. And if this wasn't enough - the votes for "the loser" in your state don't count. I think you have some great ingredients for apathy cake in there...

Our population, for example, could play a major role. There are over 30 times as many people living in America as there are living in Sweden. The more densely populated Britain, I believe, also laga behind you in terms of voter turnout. It stands to reason that, the larger the population of a country, the less interest the average voter would have.Which, ironically, is an argument in favor of the electoral college.

Are you having any elections for each seperate "state government"? What are the numbers on that when it comes to people voting?

Even the closest of Presidental elections here will be decided by at least half a million votes; not exactly motivation to get up and cast your ballot. But, under our current system, several states in the last election were decided by no more than a few thousand, or less. Clearly, a system like this encourages voter turnout when compared to a simple nationwide vote-off.

I am not saying that the system is the only reason to why so few people are actually voting. But I can't understand at all how it could be working positively for encouraging people to vote. Keep it simple, and more people would vote. Some people don't have anything, but the notion of still having a vote that counts no matter what is enough for some people to vote. The system you have today just enforces the feeling of insignificance within the common man.

My old man is of the persuasion that lower voter turnout generally coincidences with wealth. A generally content people with a high standard of living have far less reason to get out and initiate change in their government than a people who are oppressed or living in relative poverty. The strong turnout in California for the recall election seems to support this notion.

Well, all research on this shows that your old man is dead wrong.

All studies in Sweden are very clear on this. The lower the average education level and the lower the average income in an area, the lower the percentage of that area's voters going to the polls. People who are not very well-off are concerned about other things than following political debates. And most important, they feel like it will not make a difference who they vote for, or if they even vote at all. These are hard facts. Well-off people tend to be more interested in politics and are also more likely to vote.

The biggest reason to why it is like this is that (in USA) poor people have a real hard time identifying with the two rich guys who are competing for the job. And of course that it will not make a difference for them who wins in the end.

It depends entirely on what you mean by "influential and powerful." Culturally, and financially, what happens in New York undoubtedly effects a significant portion of our nation. But Presidentially, having the whole of NY on your side does not in the least guarantee you victory, as countless Presidential elections show.

You said that the system protects the smaller states from being run by the ones with big populations, and I don't think if New York is for or against the president has anything to do with this. The big states run the country anyway.

[Yoda]

I said it a bit ironically, but it is a fact that Switzerland has a tradition of making decisions on a regional level by gathering (the men) on the town square and voting by raising hands.
How the occasional province handles small, local referendums is beside the point. The discussion at hand, I'd thought, is about the viability of "pure" Democracy in a significantly populated country. Seems to me that, while Switzerland is a fairly-sized country, it, as I said before, also has a level of abstraction between the executive branch of government and the populace.

I am talking about the actual physical votes, man!! The pieces of paper you put in envelopes and put in that box!! If the piece of paper says nothing but "Bob" or "The Coca Cola Party", how hard can it be to count them without having a Florida syndrome??
Paper ballots were used, if I'm not mistaken, across most (if not all) of Florida.

You make it sound so easy, but common sense should tell you that, in a country of over 280 million, things will go wrong. Do you have any reason to suspect, for example, that these sorts of problems are specific to Florida, or to the United States? Seems to me that elections the world over, unless they use radically different methods for counting the actual votes, will inevitably run into the same sorts of problems. As such, it would stand to reason that all countries have problems with vote counting, but that in the majority of major elections, the vote isn't close enough for mistakes and/or fraud to play a factor in determining the outcome.

What it should guarantee is that the choice being made is actually representative for the american people. I argue for that your system works against that choice being made correctly. Not because I think the result isn't representative, but because I think it is wrong that all votes are not being counted and that this traditionally bounded system cause apathy among the voters which leads to them not going to the voting polls.
1) You say you don't think the result isn't representative, but you also say it's "wrong." Why? Just because "one person, one vote" seems fair, it doesn't mean it's smart.

2) I see no compelling evidence to suggest that the electoral college is responsible for voter apathy in the United States. If anything, I feel I've demonstrated through very simple reasoning that it has the opposite effect.

What does "abberation" mean?
Anomaly/exception.

Having no more than two major political parties and no more than two president candidates is one political party and one president candidate away from dictatorship. And if this wasn't enough - the votes for "the loser" in your state don't count. I think you have some great ingredients for apathy cake in there...
Actually living here, your warning of a dictatorship strikes me as bizarre. If a new party emerges, it displaces one of the existing ones (which has happened in the past, by the way). Moreover, each of the two parties contains an entire SPECTRUM of political ideologies. Perhaps in some countries the members of a party hold highly consistent views, but there's lots of sub-sects of each major party here in the United States.

And let's not forget that anyone can run for President at any time as an Independent. As such, I can't for the life of me see how our system unreasonably yields itself to potential dictatorships.

Are you having any elections for each seperate "state government"? What are the numbers on that when it comes to people voting?
Yes. We elect our own Congressmen, Senators, and Governors. Each state has its own government of sorts, which can decide certain things for that state and that state alone (age minimums for drivers licensing, consensual sex, and a myraid of other things). Each state is subject to certain Federal laws as well, of course.

As for local turnout: in Pennsylvania, I believe it is absurdly low. People seem to generally take more interest in the Presidential election than they do in state elections, which supports my claims about the electoral college and voter turnout.

I am not saying that the system is the only reason to why so few people are actually voting. But I can't understand at all how it could be working positively for encouraging people to vote. Keep it simple, and more people would vote. Some people don't have anything, but the notion of still having a vote that counts no matter what is enough for some people to vote. The system you have today just enforces the feeling of insignificance within the common man.You keep saying that, but I don't see reason to believe it. Nor do I see any refutation to my explanation as to why the exact opposite is true.

Allow me to try to summarize what I'm saying: if the popular vote determined the outcome, most people would have no reason to vote whatsoever. Most elections are millions of votes apart...even the closest are hundreds and hundreds of thousands. The electoral college gives that "why bother?" sentiment a shave, especially for residents of less populated states.

Let's use the 2000 election as an example: without the electoral college, Gore wins by 500,000 votes. Not much incentive for any one person to cast their ballot. WITH the electoral college, you've got states like Arizona and Florida seperated by 1,000 votes or less! Consequently, each vote in those borderline states becomes dramatically crucial, thus giving people more reason to vote.

You note, correctly, that votes can lose value in certain situations, under this system. What you seem to be missing is that votes can also GAIN value. The result is that, unless one state is rabidly supportive of one party or another for a sustained period of time, each person's vote has the potential to have a greater impact on the Presidental race. It's a higher stakes game, in other words, and it's worked damned well for the most part throughout our history.

Well, all research on this shows that your old man is dead wrong.

All studies in Sweden are very clear on this. The lower the average education level and the lower the average income in an area, the lower the percentage of that area's voters going to the polls. People who are not very well-off are concerned about other things than following political debates. And most important, they feel like it will not make a difference who they vote for, or if they even vote at all. These are hard facts. Well-off people tend to be more interested in politics and are also more likely to vote.

The biggest reason to why it is like this is that (in USA) poor people have a real hard time identifying with the two rich guys who are competing for the job. And of course that it will not make a difference for them who wins in the end.
Actually, no, the research shows no such thing, because the claim in question is in reference to the wealth of the country, and not the wealth of the individual. We're not talking about whether or not Rich German A in Germany is more likely to vote Poor German B. We're talking about whether Rich Country A is going to have a higher or lower overall electorate turnout than Moderately Wealthy Country B.

I would think it would be a given that people become more politically passionate when things aren't going the way they would like. Politics is about changing your country, and you're far more likely to take an interest in changing your country if you're dissatisfied with your life in it.

You said that the system protects the smaller states from being run by the ones with big populations, and I don't think if New York is for or against the president has anything to do with this.
Last I checked, we were having a discussion about the Presidential election and the impact each state has on it. As such, I don't see why who NY supports for President is anything but highly relevant.


The big states run the country anyway.
As I stated before, this depends entirely on how you define "influential and powerful" or "running the country." How do you believe New York runs America?

[Henry The Kid]

I sorta tuned out in the middle of this thread. Just assume I probably would have spewed some anti-two party system vitriol.

[Piddzilla]

How the occasional province handles small, local referendums is beside the point. The discussion at hand, I'd thought, is about the viability of "pure" Democracy in a significantly populated country. Seems to me that, while Switzerland is a fairly-sized country, it, as I said before, also has a level of abstraction between the executive branch of government and the populace.

Look, you asked me - I don't know why though since it has no significance at all to this discussion - if I could name one single country that had "pure" democracy, and Switzerland was the country that came to mind. Of course they have some "abstraction between the executive branch of government and the populace". Show me one post or one place in any of my posts where I say that every single decision in the country should be made by every single citizen. I don't know why this is so important to you. It only adds to my suspicion that you and I seem to be talking about different things or that you don't understand what I am saying.


Paper ballots were used, if I'm not mistaken, across most (if not all) of Florida.

Oh man... I knooooooooow. But how many NAMES were on each piece of paper??? Do you have the both candidate's names on the same piece of paper??

You make it sound so easy, but common sense should tell you that, in a country of over 280 million, things will go wrong.

What's wrong with trying to work with the vision that nothing should go wrong?

Do you have any reason to suspect, for example, that these sorts of problems are specific to Florida, or to the United States?

No. I am criticizing the system, not the country.

Seems to me that elections the world over, unless they use radically different methods for counting the actual votes, will inevitably run into the same sorts of problems.

That is no excuse for errors occuring.

As such, it would stand to reason that all countries have problems with vote counting, but that in the majority of major elections, the vote isn't close enough for mistakes and/or fraud to play a factor in determining the outcome.

All countries don't have problems counting their votes. I don't know where you've got that information. And it seems like the rest of the USA except for Florida didn't have that big problems either. I don't care about the Florida recount that much, that is not what I am talking about primarily. But the Florida recount is a symptom of what is wrong with the things I think is wrong with your system.

The voting ballots are obviously to complicated to a) comprehend when voting, and b) interpret when counting the votes.

And if you had a majority vote system, you would probably not have had that recount scandal in the first place.

1) You say you don't think the result isn't representative, but you also say it's "wrong." Why? Just because "one person, one vote" seems fair, it doesn't mean it's smart.

I think it is fair that the candidate who receives the most votes also becomes the president. Simple as that.

When I said that I didn't think that the result could still be representative, I meant in general and obviously not in this particular case. And I do think that system is good when it comes to electing representatives for the Congress and the Senate, as I have said before, but not when it comes to electing president.

2) I see no compelling evidence to suggest that the electoral college is responsible for voter apathy in the United States. If anything, I feel I've demonstrated through very simple reasoning that it has the opposite effect.

I think the 50% in the presidential election is proof enough. Actually, wasn't it closer to 49%? That is pretty interesting since in a lot of places (in Sweden for example) at least 50% of the voters have to vote if the election is going to be viewed as valid. If not, there has to be a new one.

In short, how could it be worse with a majority vote system?

Anomaly/exception.

Oh, in that case...

No, I don't. But then again, I'm not trying to make the case that our system is perfect. Just that it's sensible. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will make the right choice in every referendum. Similarly, the American Republic should not expect that every election will go off without a hitch; especially when the nation is as large as it is now.

I don't see why every single state can't handle their elections by themselves (aren't they in a way doing that allready?) and then just add the states' reults together and - voila - you have a perfectly valid nationcovering result!

I think the reason to some problems with the elections being the fact that USA is a large country is not good enough of a reason. At what size of a population do you believe these "democracy problems" start?

As messy as the election might have been, I see no reason to place the blame for it at the feet of the electoral college. What's more, anyone with even a cursory view of modern American politics (which I imagine you have) can plainly see that the 2000 Presidental Election was an abberation.

Yes, and it exposed the insufficient system to the world and uncovered it weaknesses. I knew pretty much how it worked before 2000 but I thought somewhere that there was something that secured that the one who got the most votes also won the election, no matter what. And I didn't have a clue that those voting ballots were so idiotically designed.

Actually living here, your warning of a dictatorship strikes me as bizarre. If a new party emerges, it displaces one of the existing ones (which has happened in the past, by the way). Moreover, each of the two parties contains an entire SPECTRUM of political ideologies. Perhaps in some countries the members of a party hold highly consistent views, but there's lots of sub-sects of each major party here in the United States.

Jeez, Yoda. I don't think USA stands on the brink of dictatorship. But two options wouldn't be enough for me at least. It was an.. what is it now.. analogy?

And I know that the two parties contains an entire spectrum of political ideologies (socialism?). That is why if you vote for something you like, you most certainly at the same time will vote for something you hate. I look at the Democrats and I see a party containing the same views as the left wing and the right wing of swedish party politics, the extreme left and the extreme right excluded. There are also some republicans/democrats that to me are so liberal/conservative that I wonder if they have perhaps gone to the wrong party regarding their political views.

For me it is pretty apparant that this is one of the reasons to why a lot of americans don't vote. They must feel like whoever they vote for, in the end it won't make much difference anyway.

And let's not forget that anyone can run for President at any time as an Independent. As such, I can't for the life of me see how our system unreasonably yields itself to potential dictatorships.

Any rich guy, you mean. And are these independents always allowed to participate in debates on national tv and stuff like that?

Let's just say that being given two options and two options only seems not enough to me.

Yes. We elect our own Congressmen, Senators, and Governors. Each state has its own government of sorts, which can decide certain things for that state and that state alone (age minimums for drivers licensing, consensual sex, and a myraid of other things). Each state is subject to certain Federal laws as well, of course.

As for local turnout: in Pennsylvania, I believe it is absurdly low. People seem to generally take more interest in the Presidential election than they do in state elections, which supports my claims about the electoral college and voter turnout.

Ok, in a previous post you said:

"It stands to reason that, the larger the population of a country, the less interest the average voter would have.Which, ironically, is an argument in favor of the electoral college."

as a response to why so few people voted in the presidential election. I guess you meant that the voters feel too alienated from Washington and what goes on there (which is probably one of several perfectly valid reasons). So that's why I asked you about these "local elections".

There should be more people voting for those "State governments" than for the presidential election, using your logic, since the state's population is a lot smaller than the population of the entire USA. But since I take it "absurdly low" is lower than the presidential election's 50%, I assume that it is the other way around.

So once again, I think blaming the size of the american population is a cop out. I think there must be other reasons to why politicians are not really represenatitves for the entire population anymore.

You keep saying that, but I don't see reason to believe it. Nor do I see any refutation to my explanation as to why the exact opposite is true.

Allow me to try to summarize what I'm saying: if the popular vote determined the outcome, most people would have no reason to vote whatsoever. Most elections are millions of votes apart...even the closest are hundreds and hundreds of thousands. The electoral college gives that "why bother?" sentiment a shave, especially for residents of less populated states.

Let's use the 2000 election as an example: without the electoral college, Gore wins by 500,000 votes. Not much incentive for any one person to cast their ballot. WITH the electoral college, you've got states like Arizona and Florida seperated by 1,000 votes or less! Consequently, each vote in those borderline states becomes dramatically crucial, thus giving people more reason to vote.

You note, correctly, that votes can lose value in certain situations, under this system. What you seem to be missing is that votes can also GAIN value. The result is that, unless one state is rabidly supportive of one party or another for a sustained period of time, each person's vote has the potential to have a greater impact on the Presidental race. It's a higher stakes game, in other words, and it's worked damned well for the most part throughout our history.

And you think this is the conclusion that americans thinking about voting or not voting is coming to? That... "hmmm... I better get my ass down there and vote. This year my vote might just make a difference...". This long essay on the matter by you proves that it is far too complicated of a system for some people to even understand.

You are right though. It gives the smaller states a voice, which is good. When voting for Congress and Senate.

It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many people actually voting in those smaller states compared to bigger states. Especially districts with high unemployment and poverty. It would also be nice to investigate where the political sympathies lies with those who didn't vote and who live in states that vote traditionally Democrats or Republicans.

Actually, no, the research shows no such thing, because the claim in question is in reference to the wealth of the country, and not the wealth of the individual. We're not talking about whether or not Rich German A in Germany is more likely to vote Poor German B. We're talking about whether Rich Country A is going to have a higher or lower overall electorate turnout than Moderately Wealthy Country B.

I did read it wrong and your old man is actually saying exactly what I am saying. That the richer the people of a nation is, the more likely that they will vote. But the statistics I was referring to is still correct and I wish you knew swedish so I could show them to you. Election districts with a large number of immigrants, high unemployment, low average income, high percantage of people on wellfare and a low percantage with people with higher education have lower numbers of people going to the voting ballots than rich election districts. If you compare the portion of people voting to that of those who did not vote, you will see that the portion of those voting is "richer" than the portion of those not voting. This tells (at least) me that there aren't enough alternatives, since big parts of the population feel that they don't have anything to gain by voting.

Did you edit this post while I was responding to it?? I am sure there was something about California here a minute ago!

I would think it would be a given that people become more politically passionate when things aren't going the way they would like. Politics is about changing your country, and you're far more likely to take an interest in changing your country if you're dissatisfied with your life in it.

That's how it should be, but apparantly that's not the way it is. And why is that? Is it perhaps because there are no alternatives? You either vote for the rich guy who promise you better schools or the rich guy who promise you lower tax, and still nothing changes. The problem is that America doesn't seem to think this is a problem of the politicians but a problem of those who were "too lazy" not to vote. It is unfortunate that they didn't vote. It would have been a lot better if they went there and put a blank vote in the envelope to demonstrate their discontent.

The problem of having only two political parties involved in the presidential campaign is that there is no way that you can attract those not voting at the same time as you have to keep the support of the established party elite.

Last I checked, we were having a discussion about the Presidential election and the impact each state has on it. As such, I don't see why who NY supports for President is anything but highly relevant.

Because you said that your system stops the largely populated states from running the country, and I mean that who they vote for in the presidential election has nothing to do with their actual influence on and power over your country. Would you say that your life becomes more "new york" when they have voted for the winner and less "new york" when they voted for the loser?

As I stated before, this depends entirely on how you define "influential and powerful" or "running the country." How do you believe New York runs America?

I am not saying that New York as a state alone runs America. I used New York to represent the largely populated states of America. But when we are speaking of New York anyway, I think the stock market in New York is extremely powerful not only in American but in the whole world. A lot of media is concentrated to New York, and media is a very powerful thing. The New York port is America's largest, I believe. Things like that. So even if they didn't vote for Bush, it won't make any difference. They are powerful no matter what.

[Monkeypunch]

I don't know how I missed this thread, but I really don't have a whole lot of time to respond right at this moment. I will say, though, that it is very well documented that the fix WAS in, the evidence is black and white, not even remotely subjective, and that's all that needs to BE said. Hell, in my state, we actually had newspapers that declared Bush the winner ON THE STANDS before the final counts were even in. If that were any fishier, it'd come in a can of tuna.

[LordSlaytan]

My God!!! You guys are boring! Go chase some tail or something for chrissakes!

[Monkeypunch]

My God!!! You guys are boring! Go chase some tail or something for chrissakes!

Hey, my girl's coming over after work, but I gotta do something to kill time, and my sense of righteous indignation knows no silence! :D

[Yoda]

Look, you asked me - I don't know why though since it has no significance at all to this discussion - if I could name one single country that had "pure" democracy, and Switzerland was the country that came to mind. Of course they have some "abstraction between the executive branch of government and the populace". Show me one post or one place in any of my posts where I say that every single decision in the country should be made by every single citizen. I don't know why this is so important to you. It only adds to my suspicion that you and I seem to be talking about different things or that you don't understand what I am saying.
Of course it's relevant to the discussion. The whole point here is that you need to have that layer of abstraction, be it the Electoral College or the Federal Assembly. Perhaps we are talking about other things, but I feel I've been remarkably clear throughout this discussion. You'll notice I'm repeating the same things now I was saying originally.

Oh man... I knooooooooow. But how many NAMES were on each piece of paper??? Do you have the both candidate's names on the same piece of paper??
As many names as there are candidates. And yes, I believe it's all on one piece of paper.


What's wrong with trying to work with the vision that nothing should go wrong?
Nothing. It's good to shoot high. But optimism needs to be coupled with realism at times, and, realistically, you're not going to have a 280,000,000 person election go off perfectly. Ever.


No. I am criticizing the system, not the country.
Yes, I know. And I'm asking if you have any reason to believe these problems are specific to OUR system. That is, do you really have any way of knowing or measuring how much abuse, fraud, or miscounting goes on in, say, your elections, or that of another country? Because one of my arguments here is that plenty of screwups go unseen, and only saw the light in this election because it was close enough to dramatically effect the outcome.


That is no excuse for errors occuring.
I'm not saying it makes it okay, but I definitely think it makes it understandable. I'd bet, without hesitation, that there are screwups in virtually every single election your country holds. You're never going to be perfectionist when you're dealing with millions upon millions of people.


All countries don't have problems counting their votes. I don't know where you've got that information. And it seems like the rest of the USA except for Florida didn't have that big problems either. I don't care about the Florida recount that much, that is not what I am talking about primarily. But the Florida recount is a symptom of what is wrong with the things I think is wrong with your system.

The voting ballots are obviously to complicated to a) comprehend when voting, and b) interpret when counting the votes.
We let each state decide for itself, last I checked, how its ballots should work. I see no reason why punch-holes would necessarily be any worse than writing the name down. In the case of the former, you'll have some half-punched. In the case of the latter, you'll have lots of unintelligble handwriting. Again, this perfectionist attitude strikes me as impossibly idealistic.

Oh, and I didn't "get my information" from anywhere other than my own head. I don't see how you could possibly deny that every country of significant size would make mistakes in the voting process. Frankly, I'm shocked we're even debating this issue. How is it anything other than a given that people are fallible?

And if you had a majority vote system, you would probably not have had that recount scandal in the first place.
Not so. Though the difference between the two was roughly 500,000 votes, in an election of such significance, it wouldn't have surprised me in the least had they done a nation-wide recount (or at least a recount of some of the more populous states), which would've been even more trouble. This is all speculation, of course, as we've no way of knowing what other changes would be made to accomodate such a change in our election process.

I think it is fair that the candidate who receives the most votes also becomes the president. Simple as that. When I said that I didn't think that the result could still be representative, I meant in general and obviously not in this particular case. And I do think that system is good when it comes to electing representatives for the Congress and the Senate, as I have said before, but not when it comes to electing president.
What you don't seem to realize is that when you say "the one who gets the most votes should win" is that you're really saying "the one who has the most supporters in California, New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania should win."

This is why most countries put a slant on Democracy. A pure Democracy is mob rule...they can violate another's civil rights if they so choose. We have a Republic. It's not unlike Democracy, but it has certain checks and measures in place to make sure, for example, that people working on farmland still have some kind of sphere of influence over who is governing them.

If you want to talk about "fair," perhaps you could tell me how it is fair to have virtually everyone in the midwest living under federal policies imposed, ultimately, by the state of California. You talk about larger states running the country as if it is a negative, implying that their culturual and financial influence is sizable. It is. But it's not as if they've topped out in power...you're suggesting we give them MORE power.

Given your crticism of the two-party system, it seems you usually shun this sort of concentration of power. Why not do so consistently?

I think the 50% in the presidential election is proof enough. Actually, wasn't it closer to 49%? That is pretty interesting since in a lot of places (in Sweden for example) at least 50% of the voters have to vote if the election is going to be viewed as valid. If not, there has to be a new one.
As I stated before, it's nowhere near proof. It's only proof of voter apathy -- not proof that the apathy stems from our current electoral system.

But enough conjecture: if what you say is true; if our system is the cause of this apathy, then past turnouts should be low, too, right? Because we've had this system for quite some time. But as it turns out, we had a turnout of over 70% in the 1960 elections. 100 years ago, under the same electoral college, two-party system, we had no trouble hitting the 75-80% range. How, then, can our apathy be explained in the way you say?

In short, how could it be worse with a majority vote system?
Because, then, a small handful of states really WOULD run the country, in every sense of the word. We cannot stop New York or California from being powerful and influential without imposing ridiculous restrictions on them. But the fact that certain states will inevitably wield more influence than others is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and hand them the keys to Air Force One, too.


I don't see why every single state can't handle their elections by themselves (aren't they in a way doing that allready?) and then just add the states' reults together and - voila - you have a perfectly valid nationcovering result!
C'mon, Pid. As much disdain as you seem to have for our way of doing things, you can't possibly believe that the solution is THAT simple. If it were, we'd probably have done it already.

Anyway, yes, each state does handle its own election. And then they add the results together. We just add electoral votes instead of raw votes, for reasons which I've mentioned above (among others).


I think the reason to some problems with the elections being the fact that USA is a large country is not good enough of a reason. At what size of a population do you believe these "democracy problems" start?
That's like asking at what point ice cream starts to melt. The answer is: right away. The more people involved, the more screwups you'll have. Someone who catches a baseball 1,000 times is probably going to have more drops than someone who only has to catch it once (even allowing for the fact that, after awhile, you get a bit better at it).


Yes, and it exposed the insufficient system to the world and uncovered it weaknesses. I knew pretty much how it worked before 2000 but I thought somewhere that there was something that secured that the one who got the most votes also won the election, no matter what. And I didn't have a clue that those voting ballots were so idiotically designed.
I'm confused: you say they were idiotically designed, but you've also been asking me questions about them. Do you know how they were designed?


Jeez, Yoda. I don't think USA stands on the brink of dictatorship. But two options wouldn't be enough for me at least. It was an.. what is it now.. analogy?
Actually, it wasn't an analogy. If I understand, though, you were saying something a little extreme to make a point, which is fair enough.


And I know that the two parties contains an entire spectrum of political ideologies (socialism?). That is why if you vote for something you like, you most certainly at the same time will vote for something you hate. I look at the Democrats and I see a party containing the same views as the left wing and the right wing of swedish party politics, the extreme left and the extreme right excluded. There are also some republicans/democrats that to me are so liberal/conservative that I wonder if they have perhaps gone to the wrong party regarding their political views.
No, no Socialists in the two major parties, that I know of. There is a Socialist Party, but, as you might've guessed, they're not very popular.

I don't see how, by voting for a Republican candidate, I am also voting for any other Republican candidate. The "vote for something you like/vote for something you hate" idea only applies to people who vote straight-ticket for a single party.


For me it is pretty apparant that this is one of the reasons to why a lot of americans don't vote. They must feel like whoever they vote for, in the end it won't make much difference anyway.
And to some degree, they're right. Our system is setup in such a way that any one election is not likely to have a massive effect on the country as the whole. This means that, even if the entire electorate went insane for a day, the country would remain relatively stable. America can move in whichever direction its people want to, but its system requires that the people have a consistent, sustained desire to do so.


Any rich guy, you mean. And are these independents always allowed to participate in debates on national tv and stuff like that? Let's just say that being given two options and two options only seems not enough to me.
There are various rules for who can participate in the debates; a certain percentage of the vote in the polls, for example. Ross Perot, as you might know, received something like one-fifth of the vote in the 1992 election.

The people who usually run as Independents are generally fairly well off, but not always what I would call rich. Granted, however, they'd need to have money (or raise money, which some are quite good at) to stand a real chance. I don't think this is a problem, however, because we can, in a sense, ditch our parties the same way we can ditch our elected officials. If there is genuine demand for another party (and if things get bad, there will be), there's no reason another cannot emerge and displace one of the existing parties.


Ok, in a previous post you said: "It stands to reason that, the larger the population of a country, the less interest the average voter would have.Which, ironically, is an argument in favor of the electoral college."as a response to why so few people voted in the presidential election. I guess you meant that the voters feel too alienated from Washington and what goes on there (which is probably one of several perfectly valid reasons). So that's why I asked you about these "local elections". There should be more people voting for those "State governments" than for the presidential election, using your logic, since the state's population is a lot smaller than the population of the entire USA. But since I take it "absurdly low" is lower than the presidential election's 50%, I assume that it is the other way around. So once again, I think blaming the size of the american population is a cop out. I think there must be other reasons to why politicians are not really represenatitves for the entire population anymore.
If I were "blaming" the problem on the population, yes, it'd be a cop out. But as it stands, I think population is only a part of the problem. I think my dad's hit the nail on the head when he attributes it, at least partially, to wealth. Our lack of interest in the elections seems to coincide significantly with our growing wealth.

I think the explanation might go something like this: people are doing pretty well, they'll probably do pretty well under either party/candidate, so the only election they can bother to get at all interested in is the Presidency, since it gets so much publicity.


And you think this is the conclusion that americans thinking about voting or not voting is coming to? That... "hmmm... I better get my ass down there and vote. This year my vote might just make a difference...". This long essay on the matter by you proves that it is far too complicated of a system for some people to even understand.
It was four paragraphs, and it was laid out quite simply. Pointing to its length isn't a counter-argument, in my mind. And yes, I do believe that increases the likelihood that someone will vote. If every poll in 2004 says that Bush is going to win in a landslide, a fair number of his supporters probably wouldn't bother to vote for him.


You are right though. It gives the smaller states a voice, which is good. When voting for Congress and Senate.
You're implying that the smaller states should only have a voice in Congress?


It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many people actually voting in those smaller states compared to bigger states. Especially districts with high unemployment and poverty. It would also be nice to investigate where the political sympathies lies with those who didn't vote and who live in states that vote traditionally Democrats or Republicans.
If you feel up to it, feel free to do the research. I might, eventually, but not on the weekend. :) And probably not early next week, which figures to be busy. Naturally, though, I'd be interested in anything you find.


I did read it wrong and your old man is actually saying exactly what I am saying. That the richer the people of a nation is, the more likely that they will vote. But the statistics I was referring to is still correct and I wish you knew swedish so I could show them to you. Election districts with a large number of immigrants, high unemployment, low average income, high percantage of people on wellfare and a low percantage with people with higher education have lower numbers of people going to the voting ballots than rich election districts. If you compare the portion of people voting to that of those who did not vote, you will see that the portion of those voting is "richer" than the portion of those not voting. This tells (at least) me that there aren't enough alternatives, since big parts of the population feel that they don't have anything to gain by voting.
I don't think that's what my old man's saying at all. He's saying that a very wealthy nation will generally have a lower percentage of turnout than a poor or somewhat wealthy nation. That doesn't mean that the poorer people inside of that nation will necessarily vote more often, however. The claim, I believe, is that the trend applies to nations as a whole, but not necessarily to individual citizens (see below for further elaboration).


Did you edit this post while I was responding to it?? I am sure there was something about California here a minute ago!
I don't think so. I mentioned California a post or two ago, though. I was saying that things got unreasonably bad in California, and, consequently, they had a higher than usual turnout for the recall election.


That's how it should be, but apparantly that's not the way it is. And why is that? Is it perhaps because there are no alternatives? You either vote for the rich guy who promise you better schools or the rich guy who promise you lower tax, and still nothing changes. The problem is that America doesn't seem to think this is a problem of the politicians but a problem of those who were "too lazy" not to vote. It is unfortunate that they didn't vote. It would have been a lot better if they went there and put a blank vote in the envelope to demonstrate their discontent.
Actually, an idea just struck me that I think might reconcile the lower turnout among the poor.

It all depends on who the poor person blames. When an entire nation is poor, they know it's not THEIR fault. Their government must be the culprit, or else they'd have people of varying incomes/standards of living throughout their populace. But when a PERSON is poor, and that person can clearly see that there are others (not unlike them) succeeding, they're not going to take that same attitude of change/revolution, because they see that it's not necessarily the system that's holding them back.

Ergo, a very wealthy nation would have a lower turnout than a moderately wealthy nation, but WITHIN the very wealthy nation, the poor would vote less. Remember, you only vote if you want a change: perhaps a great number of people in poverty recognize that the American system is not the cause of their woes, and therefore don't feel particularly compelled to change things.


The problem of having only two political parties involved in the presidential campaign is that there is no way that you can attract those not voting at the same time as you have to keep the support of the established party elite.
This is assuming that those who don't vote don't vote because they dislike both candidates. But anyone who follows politics enough to have such a strong opinion on both major candidates must surely also follow it enough to be aware of the third-party candidates available. And if that were so, wouldn't men like Ralph Nader receive more support?


Because you said that your system stops the largely populated states from running the country, and I mean that who they vote for in the presidential election has nothing to do with their actual influence on and power over your country. Would you say that your life becomes more "new york" when they have voted for the winner and less "new york" when they voted for the loser?
While it's true that New York can effect the rest of the country more through it's media than its electoral votes, I think you're significantly shortchanging the significance of the latter. And let's not forget that giving NY more sway in the elections would make its media that much more influential.


I am not saying that New York as a state alone runs America. I used New York to represent the largely populated states of America. But when we are speaking of New York anyway, I think the stock market in New York is extremely powerful not only in American but in the whole world. A lot of media is concentrated to New York, and media is a very powerful thing. The New York port is America's largest, I believe. Things like that. So even if they didn't vote for Bush, it won't make any difference. They are powerful no matter what.
Sure, they're powerful. But why make them moreso by giving them more power over who is elected President?

[Yoda]

I don't know how I missed this thread, but I really don't have a whole lot of time to respond right at this moment. I will say, though, that it is very well documented that the fix WAS in, the evidence is black and white, not even remotely subjective, and that's all that needs to BE said.If you believe this, you must simultaneously believe that every single media entity of an even quasi-significant size is utterly in the pocket of the Republican party, which is more than a little wacky.

In other words: if it were so clear-cut, objective, and demonstrable, I wouldn't be learning about it from someone named Monkeypunch. :)Hell, in my state, we actually had newspapers that declared Bush the winner ON THE STANDS before the final counts were even in. If that were any fishier, it'd come in a can of tuna.Man, I hope you're kidding. This happens every election. Clinton was listed as the "Projected Winner" on various news stations before the polls were closed in many states back in the 1996 election; I know, because I was watching it. The same thing happened last election. If memory serves, CNN declared Gore the winner. This is standard election fare.

Check this out:

http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/associated/images/dewey_defeats_truman.jpg

That's President Truman holding up a newspaper proclaiming, in big bold letters, that Thomas Dewey had defeated him. Media entitites are always trying to be the first one with the story, and sometimes it bites them in the ass. If that's an indicator of conspiracy, then apparently every election over the last 50 years has been rigged.

[Monkeypunch]

In other words: if it were so clear-cut, objective, and demonstrable, I wouldn't be learning about it from someone named Monkeypunch. :)



Okay, I see your point, but i wouldn't go around simply decrying my posts simply by virtue of screen name, Muppet-boy... :D

Oh, and obviously, if every media outlet was in the pocket of the republicans, there wouldn't be any evidence. I was saying nothing of the sort. What I was saying is that there is tons of evidence that the election was rigged, and people chose to ignore it.

oh, maybe i was a bit if not a lot overzealous about the newspaper thing. it just seemed off that we got said paper like a day early before the counts were even finished. That was a bit over the top. sorry.

[theshape82]

oh wow
i've been gone far too long...what are we talking about again?

[nebbit]

oh wow
i've been gone far too long...what are we talking about again?

Were you away :rolleyes:

[theshape82]

Were you away :rolleyes:

could you possibly refrain from making snide comments towards me? i don't believe i've done anything wrong in that post. i didn't offend anybody. i just asked a simple statement.

[nebbit]

could you possibly refrain from making snide comments towards me? i don't believe i've done anything wrong in that post. i didn't offend anybody. i just asked a simple statement.

Hey i was just joking, sorry if I have upset you, but you better not be so sensitive, as this is mild compared to what you may get from others and it is usually tongue in cheek stuff, people here are nice and usually there no malice intended, just fun.

Sorry :bawling: