| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:10:54
|
Chocky, the Israeli voting system sounds similar to the NZ system. I've never heard anyone here suggest it was anything less than scrupulously honest. I don't have any doubt that election results here are correct.
It's kind of worrying that there are people in the USA even thinking about the possibility of foul play. 
|
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:17:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Chocky, the Israeli voting system sounds similar to the NZ system. I've never heard anyone here suggest it was anything less than scrupulously honest. I don't have any doubt that election results here are correct.
It's kind of worrying that there are people in the USA even thinking about the possibility of foul play.
That's what worries me as well. What's more, I was kind of surprised that after the 2000 election people didn't try to get rid of the Electoral Collage system. I guess it would have been mostly Democrats that would have liked to change the system and that would have looked like sour grapes. Doesn't make it a good idea, though.
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 11:09:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
We use the very technologically advanced system of paper and pencil. No stuffed up chads for us.
And Randall - I couldn't agree with you more. That Electoral College should be abolished. The American people (who actually go out and vote) know their minds by now and I don't think they need the EC anymore.
I wasn't referring to the EC, but to the Florida recounts, which were halted for partisan reasons.
There are imbalances built into the American system, theoretically to keep things as "national" as possible. For instance, the current Senate minority represents far more people, and received far more votes, than the Republican majority. But every state, no matter how populous, gets two Senators -- and I'm fine with that. One day the EC may finally be booted [it's a system invented for the horse and buggy days], but if it had been, the Bushies would have been mad in 2000, and even had Kerry won Ohio in 2004, he would have still lost the election.
What I'd love to see in national elections instead is first, second and third choices. If your guy gets knocked out, your second choice counts instead. That way, even if you don't have a solid two-party consensus, you'll still get closer to the will of more people -- and give a third party a better chance. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 11:20:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Chocky, the Israeli voting system sounds similar to the NZ system. I've never heard anyone here suggest it was anything less than scrupulously honest. I don't have any doubt that election results here are correct.
It's kind of worrying that there are people in the USA even thinking about the possibility of foul play.
In the decisive state of Florida in 2000, and the decisive state of Ohio in 2004, the election supervisor was also the chair or co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign for that state. [The Ohio guy is running for governor this year; the Florida woman, now in Congress, has flamed out in her bid for the Senate.] It would be simple to make this as illegal as robbing an old lady. The election supervisor should not be associated with anybody's political campaign. Period.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a recent piece in ROLLING STONE detailing campaign irregularities in Ohio in 2004, and believes there's evidence that the election in that state was stolen. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 11:34:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
In the decisive state of Florida in 2000, and the decisive state of Ohio in 2004, the election supervisor was also the chair or co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign for that state. [The Ohio guy is running for governor this year; the Florida woman, now in Congress, has flamed out in her bid for the Senate.] It would be simple to make this as illegal as robbing an old lady. The election supervisor should not be associated with anybody's political campaign. Period.
Actually, I disagree. When there's a problem with voting, there should be an election supervision committee which would be made up of Republicans, Democrats AND Independants (or right, left and central, if you prefer). They should be volunteers and shouldn't be allowed to receive any funds from any political party whatsoever, on penalty of a very long imprisonment plus an extremely heafty fine (I'm talking felony status for the crime). If you ask me, that's the only way you can make sure that there's absolutely no hanky-panky on any of the sides.
quote:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a recent piece in ROLLING STONE detailing campaign irregularities in Ohio in 2004, and believes there's evidence that the election in that state was stolen.
I do recall seeing many, many pieces on how both the 2004 and 2000 elections were stolen. I guess no one is listening or reading these, because there's just not enough public outcry to make people read and listen. I find that sad.
Perhaps the USA has outgrown the two-party system and they should think about revamping the whole thing, top to bottom. Or perhaps they should just find a way for another party or two to get inside, for a change.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 11/07/2006 11:36:48 |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 18:17:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I do recall seeing many, many pieces on how both the 2004 and 2000 elections were stolen. I guess no one is listening or reading these, because there's just not enough public outcry to make people read and listen. I find that sad.
How can there be public outcry? 70% or more of our "free" media is owned by the Right. And all three bodies of our government are controlled by the Right. There are no checks and balances.
The people did cry out. But, no one heard. There wasn't the coverage there should be in a "free" society, with a "free" press.
If people who suspect foul play cry out and there's no one there to put it on TV or write it up in the paper, did they make a noise?
I've heard that if you want to demonstrate at a public event, like the President speaking, you are told you have to have your demonstration down several blocks and around the corner. Is that a "free" society? So there is no way you demonstrating your right to express your opinion will get in the way of our President having his "Kodak moment". This administration continues to keep anyone with a differing opinion from being allowed to speak their minds. And should you speak your mind, they will go after you and take whatever you say and rewrite it (like they did with Kerry just this past week) to be something you didn't mean and then make that the story. Then that story of what you didn't really mean to say, is covered full force by the media. Ridiculous.
I think America at one time was inhabited by people who really did want it to be run "by the people". They wanted to know what the "people" wanted. Who the "people" wanted to sit in office. Where the "people" wanted our country to go. But, sometime in the last decade or so, there was a group of very influential people who decided they didn't care what the "people" of America wanted. There's more $ to be made getting into and remaining in power and not letting something like what the "people" think about what you're doing get in your way.
I advise anyone who's interested to watch "Hacking Democracy". If you are an American, or if you even believe in our system, it will make you sick to your stomach.
Sad, but I'm sorry to say, really, really close to the truth.
So, I voted. Do I think the Democrats will gain enough seats to restore balance to our government? I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 11/07/2006 18:29:15 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 19:42:21
|
| You sure you don't want to return to a constitutional monarchy? |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 21:18:35
|
The Electoral College protects the rights of small state voters. If you could win the election based on a simple majority, candidates would predominantly target large cities only in their run to office. The way it is now, all states have some say and while California has the most population and thus the largest # of electoral votes, you simply need to receive a majority to take all these votes - as such when California (a largely liberal state) is soundly in the hands of one candidate, the candidates focus more on other states that are toss-ups. In some ways this makes sense, because it forces candidates to better define issues where there is the most indecision.
The electoral college is in some ways a compromise between pure democracy (or simple majority for all voters) and a parliamentary system which similiarly elects Prime Minister based on the majority of seats in the legislature. It is far more direct than parliamentary process, because it separates legislative voting from executive voting, but preserves the importance of smaller states such as Iowa, Montana, Arkansas, Tennesee, etc. that have been close in recent years and could have reversed the result. I think it gets a bad rap because a) its more complicated and b) its seems elitist because the people don't directly elect their president. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 21:59:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
The Electoral College protects the rights of small state voters. I think it gets a bad rap because a) its more complicated and b) its seems elitist because the people don't directly elect their president.
I would think more of the EC if electors were legally pledged to cast their votes for the candidates who elected them. At any rate, the popular vote is a number easily known. What might change the electoral map -- and get more attention from "safely red" or "safely blue" areas of the country -- would be if the EC produced proportional electors; i.e. do away with winner-takes-all-electoral votes. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 22:00:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Chocky, the Israeli voting system sounds similar to the NZ system. I've never heard anyone here suggest it was anything less than scrupulously honest. I don't have any doubt that election results here are correct.
It's kind of worrying that there are people in the USA even thinking about the possibility of foul play.
That's what worries me as well. What's more, I was kind of surprised that after the 2000 election people didn't try to get rid of the Electoral Collage system.
Nope, the Electoral Collage ran full steam in the mid-terms. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 08:23:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
quote:
Perhaps the USA has outgrown the two-party system and they should think about revamping the whole thing, top to bottom. Or perhaps they should just find a way for another party or two to get inside, for a change.
I think CL might have a good point here. The more I look at the US system of electing government the more I shake my head. Imagine the difficulties of having a president whose party can't run the government.
The Aussie system has the leader of the majority in the House of Reps as the Prime Minister. If his party loses faith in him and wishes to replace him with an internal vote, it does. If the voters cause his party to lose its majority, he becomes leader of the opposition and we have a new PM.
The Senate is a bit trickier as half come up for re-election at every 3 years (6 year terms) which means the government may have to govern without controlling the Senate. This obviously requires a fair amount of horse trading and compromise but is a part of our checks and balances. Since we have 6 senators from each state and 2 per territory (76 in all) many minor parties which don't get a look into the H of Reps can have a big impact in the upper house.
I couldn't imagine having to deal with just 2 parties with such a broad range of issues.
I have voted right in one house and left in the other to try and maintain a balance. 
I love teaching this topic to 11 & 12 y-o kids and in 12 days we're heading off to Canberra for the Grade 6 camp. We'll visit our Parliament (when our local member is in the capital she takes us on a tour of the back offices - often including the leader of the opposition. She was at our school on Monday and spent an hour chatting to our kids - they really enjoyed it.)
I love being in a country that gives this sort of access to its citizens. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 10:28:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
[br ... a parliamentary system which similiarly elects Prime Minister based on the majority of seats in the legislature.
Point of clarification:
In the UK the Prime Minister isn't elected by the electorate. The Prime Minister is the head of whichever party is elected. UK elections decide which party will govern and it's the party machine which chooses its own leader. That's why when Blair goes, Brown or whoever the party endorses, will automatically take the role of PM without the wider electorate's vote. The UK equivalent to the US President as head of state is the queen, an unelected post. That's why the founding fathers wanted an elected position, and why it's possible to have a Congress reflecting one party while the head of state is from another. What's confusing is that over the years the head of state has taken on some of the role of a Prime or First Minister. And what's annoying many Brits is that the Prime Minister role has increasingly become more Presidential.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 11:31:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
I don't think Em will be eating her words just yet. She'll be too busy partying! |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 12:04:29
|
The House has turned, and control of the Senate will depend on recounts in Virginia and Montana's very close races. The only major disappointment for us Democrats was the defeat of Harold Ford in Tennessee, after one of the nastiest race-baiting TV ads ever. Evidently it worked -- but only in Tennessee.
It was clear that the American public did not care for the President's policies, particularly in Iraq. What was not clear was whether this would show up in election returns.
And Dan Rather appeared with Jon Stewart on THE DAILY SHOW. What a night... |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 15:06:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
I don't think the Republicans and their privately owned Diebold and other tallying machines will let that happen -- possibly never again.
You might need more faith in your system from the early results.
I don't think Em will be eating her words just yet. She'll be too busy partying!
Whoooooooooo! Hooooooooooooo!
I have never been so happy to be wrong in my life!!!
Let the healing begin.
EM :) |
Edited by - Montgomery on 11/08/2006 15:15:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Why I Love Bill Maher!
