I think that the people in the west as well as the rest of the world tend to view 'democracy' as some kind of a synonym for Liberal Capitalism. In fact those that are opposed to 'democracy' in most of these countries are probably mostly opposed to the idea of western nations attempting to set up a Liberal Capitalist form government.Funny how most of us living in these liberal capitalist societies seem to be happy and rich, compared to those who don't. I personally consider that freedom of personal choice and expression goes hand-in-hand with freedom of economic choice, which implies liberal capitalism.
Well I think Democracy = Rich is another misplaced synonym. That is not to say that I doubt capitalism ability to make a nation state rich but it sure does not happen overnight. More then one fledgling democracy has collapsed when democracy failed to deliver the goods quickly enough.
As to the happy part - I would think that those who oppose Liberal Capitalism look for, and have little trouble finding, aspects of our societies that they are deeply disturbed by. 300 years ago everyone in the West was Christian, basically without exception. What are the numbers know? 75% and falling? So Liberal Capitalism seems to be an ideal mechanism for turning people into Godless heathens or, arguably worse, practioners of Neo-Paganism and other alternative religions. If you are deeply concerned about the welfare of your people’s immortal souls that might be a good enough reason to oppose it violently right there.
Get beyond that and we seem obsessed with worldly goods and are simply drowning in a wide range of immoral vices. We positively bask in our vices ... and for all that we still somehow manage to have absurd rates of suicide, especially among our rebellious and disrespectful youth.
"Democracy" is a more general term that means either the people hold direct power, or they pass that power on to elected representatives. "Liberalism" is having a liberal point of view (in this case regarding politics), which is not the case of all people in this country. "Capitalism" is primarily used to define an economic system, although it can be used to define a political system based upon such economic policies. If we wanted to be accurate, the best term to use would probably be Representative Republic. That is what we have here in the US, and it seems to be what we are trying (and possibly failing) to do in the Middle East.
I believe I am using Liberal Capitalism as one might find it defined in a political science text. So Liberal from Liberalism or Liberty. Meaning the right for the 'little people' (those without hereditary titles and land) to vote, follow the religion or their choice etc. In this context America is the quintessential Liberal Capitalist State. Obviously I need a broad brush if I want to cover the beliefs, values and political system of America, Canada, Japan and Western Europe. Of course I can (and often do) instead use the term 'The West' to mean the same thing.
I think that Barney is worse...I hate getting a song stuck in my head. Now I'll be singing this s~@~ for the rest of the day.Could be worse. Nothing like getting a Thomas the Tank Engine song stuck in your head.
...boom, boom, choo-choo...
I had that happen to me once. Lasted most of a work day - it was horrible.
Perhaps i am wrong in this assessment, but my impression of message board etiquette suggests that these kind of discussions appear either in spinoff threads or in private conversations.Such etiquette, in my experience, is decided pretty much on a board by board basis. I have certainly been part of message boards where threads where almost encouraged to mutate into whatever it is the posters want to babble on about.
Each style has benefits and weak points. In a clear on topic forum (which this one is 80% of the time) one pretty much always knows what their getting when they open a thread, and the threads themselves are usually fairly short. Everyone has his or her say on whatever the topic is and then the thread dies.
The rambling version makes finding specific information hard and means that the original point of a thread has often changed into something else – often changing repeatedly over the course of its (often long) life. On the other hand it increases the amount of activity on the message board itself as people pipe up on each topic in turn as it emerges and of course don't hesitate to go off on some side tangent that one or more posters might be interested in exploring. Of course there is also more danger of the topic being explored not being considered an appropriate topic for the board in general.
Which is best all depends on what one wants more. More focus or more activity?
I think part of what is happening is we are seeing something of a shift (though not a dramatic one). As the reguler posters get more familier with each other they also become interested in both expressing their views on none game related topics and in reading the others opinions about non game related topics. This is exaberated by the fact that long time posters have already covered a great many of the big topics. Arguing about Munchkinism or Alignment has mostly lost its lustre. I already know where many of the regulars stand in these regards. Why cover the same ground yet...
|
Heathansson's a Conan fan!!!mighty thews rippling with a fierce, primal fury
Crom and Mitra! What gave me away?
Tho' I have to admit Moorcock's Von Bek, Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, and King's Roland the Gunslinger also rank way up there, they all have to bow their hats to the original King of Aquilonia, who tread the jeweled thrones of Hyboria under sandaled foot.
|
Still Iran's recent elections were not rigged. Their leader is a real expression of the will of the people.
Not rigged? The mullahs banned half of the parliamentary candidates - funnily enough, those in favour of greater democracy and accountability. Not rigged?
Not exactly what you or I might consider an ideal democracy but still a reflection of the will of the people.
59% voter turnout is not at all bad. The Reform Movement was admittedly hampered in that they went with a 'safe' but uninspiring candidate to make sure the Mullahs did not exercise their veto. Still the two previous Reform terms substantially failed and the Reform Movement was already somewhat on the ropes.
Back that with scandals in the previous Reform government and an air of corruption that had many of the voters feeling that Reform equals elites stuff their pockets full of money and manages to implement little else of substance, and the voters are beginning to look elseware.
Top it all off with a feeling among many in Iran that the western world is singling them out for a thrashing, thus any true patriot who loves his country should be getting on the anti-America anti-west bandwagon and the voters fall in line behind a charismatic and populist leader. Spurning both the Reform Movement and its supposed Conservative foes in favor of a third option.
Unfortunately for us the guy is also anti-west. Our media was mostly asleep at the wheel as well. The whole result came as something of a shock. However if you had been reading the papers in Arabic from other countries in the Middle East it was apparently clear a few days before everything was final what was taking place - or so I've been told.
Anyway sounds like a basically accurate reflection of the will of the people to me. The guy got a whopping 62% of the vote on 59% voter turn out. I doubt a couple of extra Reform candidates could have overcome those kinds of numbers even if the...
I don't particularly disagree that Iran is probably one of the most democratic muslim states out, with the exception perhaps of Malaysia and, to a lesser extent (due to rampant corruption) Indonesia. But the restrictions placed on the candidates by the mullahs made it much less free and fair.
The current president was probably also the will of people, as much as it was allowed to be expressed. Not having been, but having read about the place, the guy was elected mainly out of disappointment eith the ineffectual previous incumbent (whose reform programme went nowhere due to the interference of the mullahs). I don't think he was elected due to his anti-west credentials, though. Though no big fans of the west and the US in particular, most "ordinary" Iranians want dcent jobs and prosperity (like most people). The economy in Iran is buggered, to put it bluntly (a tragedy in a counrty with such plentiful natural resources) and most people want a way out of that. They aren't even particulaly anti-west - it isn't their primary concern.
Oh, and it wan't a "couple" of pro-reform candidates who got banned - about half the parliament were refused the right to run again, and hardly any pro-reform candidates were allowed. Reforminsts are regularly harrassed, imprisoned and murdered by the authorities in Iran. Don't get the idea that they just fiddled round the edges. the current president would not have got near if he wasn't singing from the same hymn sheet as the mullahs (though he recently permitted women to attend football matches, which was banned before - a nice populist gesture, I'm sure).
So saying that the current president relects the "will of the people" is a little bit of a stretch, though of course it is a strong indicator. Is the farce in Iraq the will of the American people because George W was in favour? Not really.
On a separate post we debated democracy = happiness. I take your point, of course, that we don't walk around doing hand-springs because we can participate in the democratic process. But the problems we do have pale into insignificance compared to the arbitrary nature of governance in countries where such rights are not permitted. A repressive dicatorship can really ruin your day.
I'm no expert on Iran, but I did see the interview on Sixty Minutes with Iran's president (I know his name, just not how to spell it at the moment, sine I don't want to look it up) and I have to say that while attempts were definitely made on his part and on the part of Mr. Wallace (I believe) to seem at-ease and cordial, the knives were out. Both parties were nervous about the other. And I have to say, Iran's president has dead eyes. I'm not saying the guy is necessarily pure evil or anything like that, but I got chills looking in his face. His smile never touched his eyes and I've got enough points in sense motive to read between the lines of what he was and wasn't saying to know that he definitely shouldn't be messed with or underestimated. That's just my opinion from what I've seen of him.
|
Good assessment, James. Not only does he have an unspellable name, but he's also a really unpleasant character. However, we can take a lot of comfort in the fact that the way the Iranian governmental system is set up, the president wields very little real power. Actual policy is decided by others, and big decisions must be approved by the mullahs, who have very little to gain from overheated adventurism. This, of course, is why more reform-oriented politicians have failed to enact their policies after Khomeini's death. Thus, Mr. A. serves a double role - he's a distracting smokescreen for the real policymakers in Iran, and he also functions as a populist focal point by vocalising Islamic grievances against the West in general and the United States in particular. However, the rants and threats are mostly theater - think of him as a modern-day Spiro Agnew: whenever Nixon needed a hatchet job done, he rolled him out, but the rest of the time, he was out in the cold.
59% voter turnout is not at all bad. The Reform Movement was admittedly hampered in that they went with a 'safe' but uninspiring candidate to make sure the Mullahs did not exercise their veto.
Safe but uninspiring candidate.
Rigged votes.HMMM what country does that sound like. Surely not the US - where the popular vote (though close) failed to elect the President.
I love America - I think it is the best country on earth - I feel having lived in a couple and traveled to several I have some right to make this statement. But I ackwoledge that the country, its government, and its leader are not perfect.
But what I think is really dangerous is that American's take a holier than thou attitude towards elections and the process in other countries - the way westerners and especially Americans view religions role in political life, is different than the Middle East. I would wish their beliefs system and the psuedo theocracy of Islamic state on anyone - but that doesn't mean they are wrong - at least in terms of how they choose to govern themselves. Does that create issues with regard to trade, relief, poverty, education, human rights, and security -yes. But that is their choice, our choice is how we (as westerners) choose to interact with those people.
America (apologies to those who are not) has plenty to worry about in getting its own house in order and unravelling the situation in the Middle East is a fools crusade (chose the word on purpose). for the second time in my working life I am living in the Middle East - and our efforts in general are not appreciated and are implemented in a way that fails to win support for our culture, people, and business.
If we (the West) are to have a positive role in the Middle East - we need to think a lot more about PR, creating business ties, changing investment and ownership rules, and come to terms with how we feel about Muslims and poverty in the Islamic world.
|
|
But what I think is really dangerous is that American's take a holier than thou attitude towards elections and the process in other countries - the way westerners and especially Americans view religions role in political life, is different than the Middle East. I would wish their beliefs system and the psuedo theocracy of Islamic state on anyone - but that doesn't mean they are wrong - at least in terms of how they choose to govern themselves. Does that create issues with regard to trade, relief, poverty, education, human rights, and security -yes. But that is their choice, our choice is how we (as westerners) choose to interact with those people.
I'm British, but I personally don't see democracy as some sort of "cultural quirk" of the west, but a fundamentally good thing, for two reasons. Firstly, it allows for a peaceful transition of power. Where that doesn't exist, you end up with violence as the only way to dislodge an unwanted government is through killing, either assassination, political persecution, civil war or external invasion. That is obviously a BAD THING.
Secondly, and most obviously, it gives the man on the street a say. The "will of the people" is a complex thing expressed through various democratic systems (and I don't get this "they didn't elect the president the people wanted" stuff re Gore - he knew the rules, and would have happily taken the Oval Office if the circumstances were reversed). None is perfect, but serves the basis role of ejecting governements that, overall, do not have the support of the electorate. You say that the theocratic systems in some Islamic states are "their choice". Whose choice? The man on the street, or an entrenched governing elite who would be threatened by greater accountability? I don't think anyone asked ordinary citizens.
Churchill said something along the lines that democracy is the worst way to determine a government, except when you consider all of the alternatives. I certainly accept that there may be faults with the way that certain systems are run, which in certain states can frustrate the basic purposes of democracy. But I don't see that it is not valid to aspire to world-wide democracy - I believe it would increase prosperity and stability. There may be better ways of doing it, however, than at the end of a gun barrel.
Well, if Democracy is the best way out there and still a mess according to Churchill (sp? Sorry if I got it wrong) and many others on these boards, then perhaps a paradigm shift is in order?
I often wonder if the flaws and faults seemingly common to every government are in fact inherent in the collective psyche of society, or if we simply got a bad start. Suspending all other factors, if one was able to "reset" human society several times and see how it grew each time, would the results always be similar, or would differing opinions and ideas amongst various individuals and leaders in each instance result in radically different cultures. What if gold was never deemed valuable? What if the concept of "money" was not realized as we know it, but some other system developed instead?
All the different moving forces of a culture; and I can't help but wonder if they are inherent, or just a product of our own history?
Oh, and about the election and Gore- the statement "he knew the rules" didn't really apply, since the election when through several phases where the rules weren't really clear. The election was terrible all the way around. Good to see that we took the initiative and changed close to nothing for the next one. Kind of like New Orleans a year later....
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Churchill said something along the lines that democracy is the worst way to determine a government, except when you consider all of the alternatives.
Pffft...Churchill. You're forgetting the words of an even wiser man, one who's advise we should always heed.
"When will people learn, democracy doesn't work." - Homer Simpson
The electoral college thing is stupid procedurally and it's irritating that half the country supports it now that it worked in their favor once. It's an asinine system set up to perpetuate slavery and prevent the southern states from losing electoral power. The reason the system exists is because of the famous 3/5 compromise under which the southern states got to count slaves for the purposes of receiving federal representatives. If the presidential election had been done using a general vote, the southern states would not have received the benefits of the compromise. Thus, the electoral college.
The other irritating thing about the system occurs when you have the misfortune of living in a populous state that leans heavily in one direction. Presidential candidates don't give a damn about CA, TX, or NY even though the three states account for a significant chunk of the population of the country. But then again, we also are spared a significant amount of political advertising...
hmmm...maybe it's not such a bad system after all.
But what I think is really dangerous is that American's take a holier than thou attitude towards elections and the process in other countries
Tell me about it, I once had a huge argument with a bunch of Americans because we have compulsory voting in Australia, and they all thought that was obviously a heinous form of government tyranny. "Godammit, people should have the right to sit on their arses and make absolutely no input into the running of their nation, and then b!*%# about it when something happens that they don't like" was about the gist of their argument.
I find it almost laughable that a country can call itself a democracy when only a fraction of it's citizens even vote, and that people can say that I live in a tyrannical dictatorship because my government fines me if I refuse to participate in my own democracy. It's not that complex. If you don't vote, you AREN'T REALLY A CITIZEN. You are just some sponge exercising rights without fulfilling your responsibilities. And they call themselves patriotic! Bah.
Disclaimer: Sorry if that sounded harsh, of course many Americans are intelligent and thoughtful people with consistent opinions, and I have no problem with someone choosing not to vote, as long as they don't then start whining when the guy they thought should win didn't. And as long as they don't call me a mindless subject of a fascist regime because I follow a law designed to make sure everyone in my nation is represented, even those who can't be bothered getting off their couch to do their duty.
Now Australian accents are another story. They're okay on men, but on women...Whereas a southern or french accent is inherently sexy, an australian accent is like the unibrow of vocal affectations. I can't stand to watch an actress like Nicole Kidman on talk shows because when she talks it completely ruins her looks.
Ouch! Oh well. At least as a male Australian I can go to the US and sound all rugged and manly, safe in the knowledge that Sebastian won't hit on my girlfriend :)
I've always found the South African accent particularly unattractive on women. No wonder Charlize Theron tries to hide it even in interviews.
However, a girl with an Irish accent can talk all day and I'll listen...
|
on democracy:
the power to vote is the power to exercise your will over your fellow citizen. in it's most base form, it is the only (generally...police/military are exceptions) means of violence (power) you may exercise in such a manner.
yet, what is the average turnout for our elections? britains? australia's? anyone else's country? (i really don't know, but i am willing to bet it's less than 100% of the eligible population)
granted, the electoral college system takes the ability to directly choose who wins (and should be abolished, in my mind...as stated above, it was implemented to maintain the status quo and to prevent "uneducated" citizens, whose voice is less likely to "produce good leaders" from actually getting whom they want in office)
with our current state of global communication (assuming you can see through the double-speak/propaganda, of course), we are able to make educated, sound decisions. why do we still abdicate our only legal right to change the government to those already IN the government? tradition?
looks like it may be time for a Jeffersonian paradigm-shift.
-the hamster
yet, what is the average turnout for our elections? britains? australia's? anyone else's country? (i really don't know, but i am willing to bet it's less than 100% of the eligible population)
According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout) Australia is at 95% (the highest in the world), Britain at 76%, and the USA at 54%. What's pretty amazing is that Malta doesn't have compuslory voting yet their turnout is 94%. Talk about your responsible citizens. But they do have a very small population I think.
|
|
yet, what is the average turnout for our elections? britains? australia's? anyone else's country? (i really don't know, but i am willing to bet it's less than 100% of the eligible population)According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout) Australia is at 95% (the highest in the world), Britain at 76%, and the USA at 54%. What's pretty amazing is that Malta doesn't have compuslory voting yet their turnout is 94%. Talk about your responsible citizens. But they do have a very small population I think.
The only place in the world with a 100% turnout is the DPRK, and possibly Cuba. By contrast, in Norway we dipped down to approximately 79% turnout in the last national elections. Huge outcry and soul-searching followed to determine why the electorate had "deserted the political arena"...
And, yes, Malta is teeny tiny. But it is beautiful, and chock-full of Crusader ruins, thus making it the perfect country in my mind: rich history, beautiful nature, yearlong scuba season AND a responsible citizenry! Yay!
|
|
I don't personally think that voter turnout is really much of a reflection on the health of democracy, more that (1) all the candidates seem a bit similar, so it is hard and possibly of little import who you choose, and (2) the issues aren't that big a deal anymore. With the death of radical socialism with the USSR, the right and left are not that dissimilar anymore. While I will always vote, because I am interested in politics, as well as of specific ideology, I think you are entitled to abstain (though I would consider you a bit of an ignoramus for doing so).
|
Good assessment, James. Not only does he have an unspellable name, but he's also a really unpleasant character. However, we can take a lot of comfort in the fact that the way the Iranian governmental system is set up, the president wields very little real power. Actual policy is decided by others, and big decisions must be approved by the mullahs, who have very little to gain from overheated adventurism. This, of course, is why more reform-oriented politicians have failed to enact their policies after Khomeini's death. Thus, Mr. A. serves a double role - he's a distracting smokescreen for the real policymakers in Iran, and he also functions as a populist focal point by vocalising Islamic grievances against the West in general and the United States in particular. However, the rants and threats are mostly theater - think of him as a modern-day Spiro Agnew: whenever Nixon needed a hatchet job done, he rolled him out, but the rest of the time, he was out in the cold.
True, that he may not hold any "real power", but that nutcase is really good being the smokescreen you mention. He's not an idiot, and he knows just how far he can push it with the world body in order to keep everyone distracted. Iran has until 31 Aug to respond to the latest UN "Ruling". They've said they'll respond on 22 Aug. Anyone want to bet they'll respond with a test of their first nuclear weapon. That is a scary thought.
And, yes, Malta is teeny tiny. But it is beautiful, and chock-full of Crusader ruins, thus making it the perfect country in my mind: rich history, beautiful nature, yearlong scuba season AND a responsible citizenry! Yay!
Malta (or, at least the sea around Malta) is also the final resting place of the great Baroque painter, Caravaggio. He fled there after a gang fight between his men and the gang of an opposing Roman pimp (that's how Caravaggio supplimented his income) that left a man dead. So he packed up his paintings and left, with the other guy's friends running after him all the way looking for revenge. He fled to Malta, got knighted and made a big mural for them. When he got word that his enemies were looking for him there, he grabbed a ship and tried to leave but the seas were bad and he wasn't a great sailor so he died at sea.
I think you are entitled to abstain (though I would consider you a bit of an ignoramus for doing so).
I don't disagree - BUT, and thtis has been my issue in the last couple of elections, the calibre of candidates, all of the candidates, has been so poor that I find I am voting against the candidate I have the least use for rather than voting for a candidate I want.
|
|
The electoral college thing is stupid procedurally and it's irritating that half the country supports it now that it worked in their favor once. It's an asinine system set up to perpetuate slavery and prevent the southern states from losing electoral power. The reason the system exists is because of the famous 3/5 compromise under which the southern states got to count slaves for the purposes of receiving federal representatives. If the presidential election had been done using a general vote, the southern states would not have received the benefits of the compromise. Thus, the electoral college.
For the record, the Electoral College was developed in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. This means that the Founding Fathers developed in when slavery was legal in all states, so I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was developed to benefit salvery in the southern states.
Unless, of course, you mean the 12th Ammendment, adopted in 1804? No wait, that couldn't be it. The 12th Ammendment allowed the electors to cast one vote each for President and Vice-President. Before that the top vote getter was Pres and the second place guy was VP, which meant that they could be from opposing parties.
And you can't mean the 23rd Ammendment of 1961. Not only was slavery illegal by then, but the 23rd simply established that the District of Columbia could choose electors.
RE: Churchill's comment of 'democracy being the worst way to deterimine a government' - I think Churchill was referring to the hassles that come from a "true democracy", where EVERYTHING is put to a vote by the people. At the time of the Founding, this country had a lot of people who were very spread out. It would have been impossible to function as a single nation using the "true democracy" style because of the distances involved and the lack of rapid communication. So they deliberately designed the government as a Representative Republic, which has worked quite well for the last 200+ years, with only a few hiccups along the way. What amazes me is that it seems the talk of removing the Electoral College only really began in earnest since the election of 2000 was "stolen" from Mr. Gore.
Personally, I try not to debate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in how they set up the basic workings of our government.
Oh yeah, my rant for the morning: I hate having to re-organize my comic book collection. I've been collecting for over 20 years now, so I've got a lot of books.
|
|
I think you are entitled to abstain (though I would consider you a bit of an ignoramus for doing so).I don't disagree - BUT, and thtis has been my issue in the last couple of elections, the calibre of candidates, all of the candidates, has been so poor that I find I am voting against the candidate I have the least use for rather than voting for a candidate I want.
I always vote and every time I feel like I am trying to pick the lesser of 2 evils. Very depressing. Between the candidates "special interests", stances on personal health issues (why should government decide if someone should get an abortion?), and the disgusting amount of lies thrown about during the campaigning process, I hate voting but feel that if I don't then I am contributing to the downfall of our government. I would love to see all candidates given an equal fund for campaigning after qualifying for candidacy. It would be great to hear some of the other partys' candidates' stances and opinions instead of : DEMOCRAT VS. REPUBLIC and hoping that INDEPENDANT doesn't siphon off too many votes from one or the other. Still let the campaigners have their fund raising events but have the proceeds split-up equally for the 5-10 major candidates. I am tired of having 2 viable options to vote for. I would like to vote for someone else but the way the process is set up I would rather try to help make sure that the lesser of 2 evils is voted in instead of throwing away a vote for the "green" candidate from some obscure party that will get less than 1% of the votes cast.
I hate voting, but I like Bit*hing. Can't bit*h about the process if you don't vote.FH (licensed bit*her)
I wish I had voted...in 2000...in the presidential election...when I lived in Tampa, Fla.
From now on, I will vote EVERY TIME UNTIL I AM SPROUTING TULIPS. The last 6 years might actually be all my fault.
(Shaking fist in fury) Damn you Heathansson, damn you! I'll get you if it's the last thing I do! :)
Edit- No, wait, don't take the blame afterall- CAn you imagine whaty they would say about the game if your inaction came out? "D&D ruins world" in every newspaper on the front page! NOOOOOO!!!!
|
|
I wish I had voted...in 2000...in the presidential election...when I lived in Tampa, Fla.
From now on, I will vote EVERY TIME UNTIL I AM SPROUTING TULIPS. The last 6 years might actually be all my fault.(Shaking fist in fury) Damn you Heathansson, damn you! I'll get you if it's the last thing I do! :)
Edit- No, wait, don't take the blame afterall- CAn you imagine whaty they would say about the game if your inaction came out? "D&D ruins world" in every newspaper on the front page! NOOOOOO!!!!
I personally blame Heathanson for all the ills in the world just because. It is fun to blame him! Global warming......Heathy must lie at root of that problem. The terrorist activities....Heathy must've p*ssed them off. Gas prices sky-rocketing.......Yup, you guessed it, Heathy does live in Texas so he MUST have ties to the oil industry.
See how easy it is. Lets all try to blame something on Heathanson. It's all his fault anyway!FH (shiftin' the focus, baby!)
Are you going to be on a ballot somewhere in the next election, FH? You've got a real knack for this kind of work.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The electoral college thing is stupid procedurally and it's irritating that half the country supports it now that it worked in their favor once. It's an asinine system set up to perpetuate slavery and prevent the southern states from losing electoral power. The reason the system exists is because of the famous 3/5 compromise under which the southern states got to count slaves for the purposes of receiving federal representatives. If the presidential election had been done using a general vote, the southern states would not have received the benefits of the compromise. Thus, the electoral college.
For the record, the Electoral College was developed in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. This means that the Founding Fathers developed in when slavery was legal in all states, so I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was developed to benefit salvery in the southern states.
Yes. I am aware and never said it wasn't. The electoral college was one of the many compromises made in favor of slavery and the slave states at the time the union was formed. It was put in place to perpetuate slavery in the southern states.
You are aware that slavery predated the formation of the union, correct? And that both the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college benefited slavery by allowing southern states to count their non-voting slaves in their representation in the federal government.
Again. Just because it worked for the guy you liked this time doesn't mean it's a good system. It is a relic of that compromise and has no place in a modern state.
Not sure why you are bringing up those other amendments since they have nothing to do with my original point.
Edit: Don't forget John Kerry's election strategy for 2004 almost resulted in a similar win in the electoral college and loss in the popular vote. Had either Florida or Ohio gone for Kerry, he would have won the presidency and lost the popular vote. Furthermore Bush's margin of the popular vote would have been larger over Kerry than Gore's margin was over Bush.
|
|
RE: Churchill's comment of 'democracy being the worst way to deterimine a government' - I think Churchill was referring to the hassles that come from a "true democracy", where EVERYTHING is put to a vote by the people. At the time of the Founding, this country had a lot of people who were very spread out.
Actually, I don't think he was - I think he was talking generally about representative democracy, with the UK parliamentary system as his particular point of reference. I think he was talking more about the politics, compromises, the fact that no one seems to get exactly what they want, that stuff takes ages to get done, uncertainty and so on. Which you get in democratic systems, because the checks and balances (rightly) prevent anyone getting too much of a say, which has the corollary that the processes run imperfectly and often slowly. A bit crap, until one considers the alternatives: tyranny and/or anarchy.
|
|
Yes. I am aware and never said it wasn't. The electoral college was one of the many compromises made in favor of slavery and the slave states at the time the union was formed. It was put in place to perpetuate slavery in the southern states.
There are two popular theories as to the creation of the electoral college. The first states that it was created to help balance out the differences in population density between various regions. The second (which you are using) states that the College allowed the Founders to incorporate both the 3/5 Compromise and the Conneticut Compromise. The Conneticut Compromise is what divided the congress into upper and lower houses, giving us the House of Representatives and the Senate.
You are aware that slavery predated the formation of the union, correct? And that both the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college benefited slavery by allowing southern states to count their non-voting slaves in their representation in the federal government.
Actually, the 3/5 compromise gave the southern states more influence in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives (as well in the apportionment of taxes). So I guesss we should do away with the House of Representatives as well?
Again. Just because it worked for the guy you liked this time doesn't mean it's a good system. It is a relic of that compromise and has no place in a modern state.
To paraphrase you: Just because it worked against the guy you liked this time, doesn't mean it's a bad system. Is it outmoded? Possibly. Should we get rid of it? I don't know, but in all seriousness, we could put it to a vote and be done with the issue one way or another. Of course, in my opinion, we have more important things to worry about than the process by which we elect our President, such as what to do to increase voter turnout.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You are aware that slavery predated the formation of the union, correct? And that both the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college benefited slavery by allowing southern states to count their non-voting slaves in their representation in the federal government.Actually, the 3/5 compromise gave the southern states more influence in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives (as well in the apportionment of taxes). So I guesss we should do away with the House of Representatives as well?
1. The 3/5 compromise does not currently effect the representation of the southern states in the House of Representatives because slavery no longer exists. Assuming slavery did exist, my argument would be that we do away with the 3/5 compromise. Your argument is incoherent. I did not say that we should do away with the office of the presidency because the electoral college system is outmoded. Similarly, if the 3/5 compromise were still in effect, I would suggest doing away with the compromise, not the House.
2. My original post acknowledged the fact that the southern states got additional representation in the House. Notice the use of the phrase "representation in the federal government." This includes representation through the House.
To paraphrase you: Just because it worked against the guy you liked this time, doesn't mean it's a bad system. Is it outmoded? Possibly. Should we get rid of it? I don't know, but in all seriousness, we could put it to a vote and be done with the issue one way or another. Of course, in my opinion, we have more important things to worry about than the process by which we elect our President, such as what to do to increase voter turnout.Again. Just because it worked for the guy you liked this time doesn't mean it's a good system. It is a relic of that compromise and has no place in a modern state.
I already said that I wouldn't like it no matter who it would work out for and provided an example of when it would have worked in favor of the other party. Would you have been happy if Kerry had won 2004 through the technicalities above? I find it unlikely.
So to you, all methods of electing our President are equal? There's no difference between the electoral college, popular vote, or throwing darts? Maybe there's a link between voter participation and the method of electing our President? There are an awful lot of people not in Florida that felt their vote was wasted in the 2000. Maybe if every vote counted, and not just the votes in the swing states, people would be more inclined to vote.
Also, don't assume that because I criticize the current administration I support "the other guy." I have voted both Republican and Democrat. In fact the candidate I supported (and who would have done a better job than Bush) lost out in the 2000 Republican primary. Whom I support is more complex than the party in which they participate. I think the saddest thing about our democracy is that there are a significant portion of voters that can't make this statement (let's call them O'Reilly/Oldermann voters). I hope you're not among them, but I can't say I've seen evidence otherwise.
I can't believe Snakes on a Plane is #1 at the box office.
What a crock.Hey, they hired a 4 year old writer to come up with that title, show a little respect. Besides it's your fault that it is #1.
FH
I can't wait to see that movie again. It was so freakin' ridiculous, it was hilarious. They even left pauses in the dialogue for audience participation.
|
|
Your argument is incoherent. I did not say that we should do away with the office of the presidency because the electoral college system is outmoded. Similarly, if the 3/5 compromise were still in effect, I would suggest doing away with the compromise, not the House.
I did not say that we should do away with the Presidency either, but thanks for putting those words in my mouth. Let's look again at what you originally said:
The electoral college thing is stupid procedurally and it's irritating that half the country supports it now that it worked in their favor once. It's an asinine system set up to perpetuate slavery and prevent the southern states from losing electoral power. The reason the system exists is because of the famous 3/5 compromise under which the southern states got to count slaves for the purposes of receiving federal representatives. If the presidential election had been done using a general vote, the southern states would not have received the benefits of the compromise. Thus, the electoral college.
You basically state that the only reason the Electoral College exists is because of the 3/5 Compromise. That is the statement that I have a problem with, I just suck at arguments. The point I was ultimately trying to make is that since no one alive today was actually around during the Founding, we can't really know if your statement is true.
It can also be said that another reason the college was created is because, in those days, means of communication and travel were both limited. Sending one or two representatives to cast the vote(s) of an entire state would have been the easiest way to make sure that everyones vote counted. In that view, the college would make perfect sense back then, but not much sense today.
I already said that I wouldn't like it no matter who it would work out for and provided an example of when it would have worked in favor of the other party. Would you have been happy if Kerry had won 2004 through the technicalities above? I find it unlikely.
No, I wouldn't have been happy if Kerry had won in 2004. But I wouldn't have called for the end of the Electoral College. Today many people argue that it is vital because it provides some measure of balance between the densely populated East and West Coasts and the less dense interior of the country. If your argument were followed to its logical conclusion, future Presidential candidates could, in theory, ignore the interior states and simply campaign in those states that have the highest populations.
There are an awful lot of people not in Florida that felt their vote was wasted in the 2000. Maybe if every vote counted, and not just the votes in the swing states, people would be more inclined to vote.
There are a lot of different theories about voter apathy. I'm no expert on any of them. Maybe some people see most politicians as corrupt bureaucrats who think of taxpayer money as their own personal spending account. Maybe some people think that their vote does no good. Maybe some people are just lazy or tend to take the freedom we have for granted. That is a question to which there is no simple answer.
Whom I support is more complex than the party in which they participate. I think the saddest thing about our democracy is that there are a significant portion of voters that can't make this statement (let's call them O'Reilly/Oldermann voters). I hope you're not among them, but I can't say I've seen evidence otherwise.
I'll admit that I have never voted Democrat. I grew up in a state where they were pretty much in control and they were crooked as hell. So I was slightly prejudiced against them.
These days, I have a less prejudiced view. I do try to look at people for their issues more than anything else (except John Edwards the Trial Lawyer, but that's a whole other story). I do tend to treat some issues as more important than others, so I tend to side with one side more often. And although I do think of myself as conservative, trust me when I say that there are things about both parties that I don't like.
|
|
.......trust me when I say that there are things about both parties that I don't like. Therein lies the overriding problem in our process. BOTH PARTIES. 2 friggin' choices. The lesser of 2 evils. Meanwhile people who would be great candidates are overlooked or don't get the air-time to express their views because they don't have Democratic/Republican party backing and/or funding.
Screw the Electorial College. I want to hear the top 5-10 candidates views equally.
FH
|
|
I can't believe Snakes on a Plane is #1 at the box office.
What a crock.
That is what I said, and my fiance replied, "But it only made 15 million." I said, "Yeah, but it was still Number 1."
Still, I might have to rent later on, just because its got Samuel L. Jackson. He kicks ass.
My rant for the morning: I hate that the New Orleans Saints always suck! They don't deserve to have the Superdome repaired and renovated. Just once, can't they do something other than serve as fodder for other teams. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH! WHY DO I KEEP SUPPORTING THEM? And don't you just hate people who call the entire season after just two games. And just for the record that isn't sarcasm and I'm not being a hypocrite. I can say with confidence that the Saints will suck because they always suck (now watch those bastards win the f~*&ing Superbowl on me).
|
|
.......trust me when I say that there are things about both parties that I don't like. Therein lies the overriding problem in our process. BOTH PARTIES. 2 friggin' choices. The lesser of 2 evils. Meanwhile people who would be great candidates are overlooked or don't get the air-time to express their views because they don't have Democratic/Republican party backing and/or funding.
Screw the Electorial College. I want to hear the top 5-10 candidates views equally.FH
That is why I keep hoping that the Libertarian Party continues to grow. A thrid party to balance out between the two (increasing) extremes would be great.
What I'd love to see is an Ammendment that let's foreign borns run for President. Then Arnold can switch to Libertarian, get elected to the big office, and make Robert E. Howard's birthday a National Holiday. He can also make a movie, playing himself as President, in which he finally catches up to Bin Laden and goes all Terminator on the a&*&#&*.
I hate that pork barrel politics results in bills with unelated topics so that you can't address a single issue - related issues I can see.
I hate that our education system is producing such poor results.
I hate that teachers are not treated as professionals.
I hate that (many) teachers don't treat themsleves as professionals - particualrly with regard to continuing education, accountability for results, and passion for the work. To those FEW exceptional teachers out there, I don't mean you.
I hate that more emphasis is placed on remedial ed and and getting slacker up to speed that on maximizing the potential of the gifted.
I hate that education is not a bigger national priority.
I hate that research is not a bigger National priority, especially stem cell research.
I hate that our leadership is so blind that it cannot see that blocking the development of specific technologies condemns America culture and society to the role of spectator and second stringer and lock is in as at best a second teir player.
I hate that the education curriculum is so shallow.
I hate that the news as broadcast on TV and in the paper is so shallow and one sided. I hate that there are cutsey stories about local events in lieu of more detiled coverage. I hate that accidents, murders, etc - take up valuable news time - those things while admittingly tragic - are titillating rather than informative - they do not serve help people better understand their world. (Certain radio programs and magazines are exempt from this rant)
I hate that the news typically focuses on the who, what, and wheres of a story as opposed to the why and the how - the why and the how is the story the rest is just labeling.
I hate that Americans (my self included) are getting so fat and out of shape.
I hate that good healthy food is more expensive than fast food.
