| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 16:45:22
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Sad that he actually has to say it. That we live in a country, now, where this sort of thing happens.
Also, that more Americans are not outraged with this particular Bush action.
EM :) |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 13:00:08
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The problem isn't the system of voting, it is the fact that there is still a huge amount of people who don't bother to vote.
Keep in mind that under some electoral systems there is no point in voting. I always vote, but if I lived in Utah I wouldn't see the point in bothering. People have a much stronger incentive to vote under a system where every vote counts. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 08:39:16
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
This comes down to philosophy. My view is that many societies* are ultimately safer and better off with the fairest system that the society can come up with, in my view this requires segments of society to be represented according to their 'popularity' or size (proportional representation). This way the minority can never run the country for their own benefit, and radical extremists are kept on the sidelines. The last thing that radical extremists such as Bush et al want is majority rule.
The problem isn't the system of voting, it is the fact that there is still a huge amount of people who don't bother to vote. When close to half of the people eligible to vote don't do so, then the results will NEVER represent the true wishes of the population. And that is how your radical extremists get elected, because the voter turn-out among the radicals and extremists are consistantly very high - probably in the 85-90% range.
I've watched it happen here in Israel at many an election when the crazy religious parties end up being the tie breakers in the government and that gives them disproportionate power. But we're a different system.
In the US it means that for your Congress and House of Representatives, about 35-40% of the population decides who gets in. In your presidential elections you haven't had significantly over 55% of the population deciding who got in since 1968. So turrell is right, don't blame it on the system, blame it on voter apathy, because if more people voted, then more people would get closer to what they want. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 04:55:33
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I simply don't like judging the system of government that has worked astonishingly well for over 200 years based on the bad execution of the construction for the past 6 years.
If it ain't broke don't fix it? That's a fair point, but being 'not broken' doesn't make it fair. There's a difference between 'working well' and working fairly. Any electoral system that ends up with a government could be considered to be 'working well'. Last election in the UK 65% voted against Blair and the Labour party, but that 65% still wasn't enough to remove them from office. Yet they have a government that is 'working well'. It's shockingly unfair on the majority who wanted them gone though.
This comes down to philosophy. My view is that many societies* are ultimately safer and better off with the fairest system that the society can come up with, in my view this requires segments of society to be represented according to their 'popularity' or size (proportional representation). This way the minority can never run the country for their own benefit, and radical extremists are kept on the sidelines. The last thing that radical extremists such as Bush et al want is majority rule.
*When I said 'many societies' I'm referring to largely cohesive societies such as NZ, UK, USA, most of Western Europe, Japan etc, where the majority want life to continue largely as it currently is, and grudgingly accept the result of elections even though their favoured party lost. Highly polarised societies where proportional representation (or any kind of democracy) isn't going to work because the losers will always reach for their guns include Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia; in those cases the only system of government that's going to 'work well' is the iron fist of totalitarianism.
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 17:19:59
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Candidates can't afford to neglect anywhere as every vote counts. E.g., if the GOP didn't bother campaigning in Nebraska and the Democrats did, then one could assume the Democrat vote would increase, which would increase the overall percentage of the vote the Dems got nationwide and they would end up with more representatives in parliament.
In the US candidates would spend all their time on the top 20 cities - forget about states altogether because they are just going after the largets population centers - it costs the same amount to make a visit to Tulsa or Topeka as it does to New York, but why bother because its a waste of time if it doesn't matter who wins.
The United States is not a Democracy - we are a Republic of federated states. Democracy doesn't exist in the world today (closest is astonishingly the Vatican, but I digress. In a Democracy all citizens get a vote - we have a representative system and all citizens do get to choose their congressional and senatorial representatives. The US Congress equally represents citizens because congressional districts are per rata defined. The Senate is by state so that smaller states do get a say - accordingly the 5 biggest states cannot set the legislative agenda. If we went to proportional voting you would not need the Senate by the same theory. If you only represented the majority in this country you would never have passed Civil Rights, you would leave disaster victims to fend for themselves locally (despite Bush and Brownie's mishandling of Katrina, the Federal government has done most of the recovery effort, even if too late and too little). Farmers would go out of business, salvery would exist in the South, etc, etc.
People only want to get rid of the Electoral College because Goerge Bush sucks as a President and in his first election he won the most electoral votes but did not win the popular vote. Incidentally he clearly won the popular vote in his re-election while nearly losing the electoral vote - if Kerry won Ohio, I imagine these arguments (at least among American liberals) would be muted. I simply don't like judging the system of government that has worked astonishingly well for over 200 years based on the bad execution of the construction for the past 6 years.
I don't believe George Bush won the first time (either vote). And the reason the votes were off the second time was because the GOP got swing states to put the question of gay marriage on the ballet to get their voter base to turn out. So sad!!!!
Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever. He has left a big mess for the next President and administration to deal with. However we elect one, let's hope it's one who at least cares a little about the country he has sworn himself to lead. Because, honestly, I can't think of one thing Bush has done that even appears to be for the good of the country. Not one.
EM :)
|
| turrell |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 16:29:02
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Candidates can't afford to neglect anywhere as every vote counts. E.g., if the GOP didn't bother campaigning in Nebraska and the Democrats did, then one could assume the Democrat vote would increase, which would increase the overall percentage of the vote the Dems got nationwide and they would end up with more representatives in parliament.
In the US candidates would spend all their time on the top 20 cities - forget about states altogether because they are just going after the largets population centers - it costs the same amount to make a visit to Tulsa or Topeka as it does to New York, but why bother because its a waste of time if it doesn't matter who wins.
The United States is not a Democracy - we are a Republic of federated states. Democracy doesn't exist in the world today (closest is astonishingly the Vatican, but I digress. In a Democracy all citizens get a vote - we have a representative system and all citizens do get to choose their congressional and senatorial representatives. The US Congress equally represents citizens because congressional districts are per rata defined. The Senate is by state so that smaller states do get a say - accordingly the 5 biggest states cannot set the legislative agenda. If we went to proportional voting you would not need the Senate by the same theory. If you only represented the majority in this country you would never have passed Civil Rights, you would leave disaster victims to fend for themselves locally (despite Bush and Brownie's mishandling of Katrina, the Federal government has done most of the recovery effort, even if too late and too little). Farmers would go out of business, salvery would exist in the South, etc, etc.
People only want to get rid of the Electoral College because Goerge Bush sucks as a President and in his first election he won the most electoral votes but did not win the popular vote. Incidentally he clearly won the popular vote in his re-election while nearly losing the electoral vote - if Kerry won Ohio, I imagine these arguments (at least among American liberals) would be muted. I simply don't like judging the system of government that has worked astonishingly well for over 200 years based on the bad execution of the construction for the past 6 years. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:26:18
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Since 9/11 when they established the different Terror Threat Levels, the threat level standing has risen every time there was something bad happening with the White House or the GOP, or when the DEMs had something good happening. It is a great diversionary tactic.
EM :)
Wag the Dog ... not just the movies 
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:12:27
Since 9/11 when they established the different Terror Threat Levels, the threat level standing has risen every time there was something bad happening with the White House or the GOP, or when the DEMs had something good happening. It is a great diversionary tactic.
EM :) |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 00:46:24
Thanks for those excellent quotes, StaLean.  I think Goering is exactly right, and that Dubya agrees with him. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 15:34:44
Who made this cynical quote?
''Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.''
Answer:
Hitler's deputy, Herman Goering
If you think this didn't happen in America or hasn't happened in every nation, then I have a nice piece of swamp land I'd like to sell you.
Here's another quote by G.K. Chesterton (not A.K.), '''My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'''
And, this kernel of wisdom from good ol' G.K., "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives [I'll take that to mean Liberals]. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
Obviously, things haven't changed much since G.K.'s day (May 29, 1874�June 14, 1936) or Goering's (January 12, 1893 � October 15, 1946), for that matter. |
| duh |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 03:46:40
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Under a proportional system, by definition, all votes count, wherever in the country they were cast. I don't believe any region in NZ considers itself neglected, parties simply cannot afford to neglect anyone, they need votes from everywhere, and a vote from a farmer in the deep south has exactly the same weight as a vote from a city slicker in the capital.
Hadn't ever thought of it that way before. Just figured that candidates would kowtow to the urban masses and to hell with us hayseeds. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:57:28
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So here are 5 questions:
1. Are you content with a system of representative democracy that doesn't fairly represent you, your family, your colleagues? OK, I'm one of 4 million Kiwis, so my representation should be 0.00000025 of the total. That would be fair.
2. Do you think there's a way to change the system so it provides a more equitable alternative? People have been thinking up society structures for millennia, and I haven't heard of a better one that what we have now. But I'm all ears.
3. Do you think there's a correlation between what happens at a local level, a national level, and a global level? Yep, to some extent.
4. Do you think there are issues which affect your life that transcend the policies of any particular political candidate or party? Yep. I'm in agreement with most of NZ's political parties most of the time, and they are in agreement with each other about most things, most of the time, so I'd say you're right. They argue about (and get media coverage on) the issues that they disagree about.
5. Do you think that most of the choices you make in your daily life are in some way political choices? Nope. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:46:42
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
imho - criticizing death isn't at all an analogy because it isn't something we as human beings created, nor can we [so far as is currently possible] do anything about its inevitability.
I don't know why Sean is concerned with avoiding death. He's definitely going to come back as a penguin. 
EM :)
Braaaaakkkkk!!! Peep peep! |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 01:45:48
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it would change the dynamics of campaigning to only th e10 or so largest states. And smaller states like my Arkansas and WHL's Indiana would largely be neglected - their votes simply wouldn't count. This would mean that presidential candidates would not be accountable to issues more common in smaller states and would only focus on issues that matter for big urban areas. The EC forces candidates to campaign in any state where it is close - to the detriment of California for example which is solidly blue as it were - the difference is that California has the most congressman so this somewhat balances out. When else would Nebraska's 8 electoral votes be so coveted - this mirrors to some effect the parliamentary system.
Hmm, I belive that in a proportional system like NZ the exact opposite of what you outlined is true. Candidates can't afford to neglect anywhere as every vote counts. E.g., if the GOP didn't bother campaigning in Nebraska and the Democrats did, then one could assume the Democrat vote would increase, which would increase the overall percentage of the vote the Dems got nationwide and they would end up with more representatives in parliament.
Under the currect EC system, most votes are completely wasted. E.g., is there any point in anyone bothering to vote in presidential elections in Utah? The result is a foregone conclusion. I'd guess this may be the principal reason for the USA having the lowest voter participation (I think?) in the Western world. Why bother voting when it doesn't count?
Under a proportional system, by definition, all votes count, wherever in the country they were cast. I don't believe any region in NZ considers itself neglected, parties simply cannot afford to neglect anyone, they need votes from everywhere, and a vote from a farmer in the deep south has exactly the same weight as a vote from a city slicker in the capital. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 17:40:19
[quote]Originally posted by BaftaBabe
So here are 5 questions:
1. Are you content with a system of representative democracy that doesn't fairly represent you, your family, your colleagues? No. I was content with a system that looked out for the majority's wishes. But, currently, I don't think our President cares for the people at all. Just profits and giving favors to his friends. And leaving the legacy of having brought "freedom" (whether they want it or not) to Iraq.
2. Do you think there's a way to change the system so it provides a more equitable alternative? I liked the NZ system. That seems fair. You get the same percentage representation as the percentage of the people who voted your way. Simple.
3. Do you think there's a correlation between what happens at a local level, a national level, and a global level? Yes, of course. We're all in this together. Whoever still thinks that the actions of one cannot affect many just isn't reading the news. And since we all share this world and it's getting smaller all the time, we all should care about all of us.
4. Do you think there are issues which affect your life that transcend the policies of any particular political candidate or party?
Again, yes. Completely. We get more done in America, when we have a President and Congress and Senate, that guides from the center. Clinton was a centralist and even though the GOP did their best to get him booted, he accomplished an incredible amount of things during his presidency.
5. Do you think that most of the choices you make in your daily life are in some way political choices?
That's a toughie. Many of my choices are related to my family and friends, so possibly, but not directly.
Bafta, I think the U.S. is definitely ready for a different form of voting to decide our elected officials. I wonder why we have to go through primaries. Why can't all those who want to run for president just get their name on the ballot? It seems foolish to have to make it through some kind of state by state primary thing. Often the candidate I wanted, withdraws before it even gets to Michigan. I'd rather have all the names on the ballot and let the best man, or woman win.
EM :) |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 17:30:59
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
imho - criticizing death isn't at all an analogy because it isn't something we as human beings created, nor can we [so far as is currently possible] do anything about its inevitability.
I don't know why Sean is concerned with avoiding death. He's definitely going to come back as a penguin.
EM :) |
|
|
