A Pride Regained

[lakritze]

As most of you probably have guessed,I have been a liberal,progressive Democrat all of my life.I stand quite a few metres left of center in most of what I believe is right and true in what it takes to practice Democracy. Well,I just finished watching the Democratic National Convention and let me say:I am so impressed with John Kerry's acceptence speech.The first three nights of the convention,I was at work.So I had to listen to some of the most magnificent speeches from former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,Threasa Heinz Kerry,Barack Obamo and John Edwards on a radio through a small set of ear plugs.Tonight it all came together with the accetence of the nomination of John Kerry to be our next President. This man is a uniter.I feel he is totally honest with a new and much needed direction.I am impressed with his determination to send the message that this country can still be a becon of hope and promise to our people and to the rest of the world.The Democratic Party has never been the left leaning party of "tax and spend" liberals but it has been the party that has been inclusive to all. Tonight the entire Democratic party in many of the diverse people who over the past three nights spoke so elequently to the dreams we have for a brighter future and the steps toward a pride regained.

[fzzy]

I'm glad to hear you're happy with things, that is good .... just have to say though, that I don't think I ever lost my pride in this country. I love the diversity and the opportunities.

[Steph]

The Daily Show just said Sharpton's speech galvanized the party, too.

A good convention, definitely.

[FallenAngel5]

As a registered Democrat, I've been keeping close tabs on the Convention as well, and I've been so impressed with all of the speakers. I'm also not ashamed to admit that the September 11th memorial had me sobbing in my living room. The speeches by Clinton, Gore, and Carter just had me amazed. I've read the text of each of these several times, and they still leave me stunned. I am so happy with the way that the whole Party is rallying behind Kerry and Edwards in this election. I think that we've gained a unity that was lacking in 2000, and that lack prevented the win, but this year... :)

I shall stop my political pandering now and just enjoy this time.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Good Luck!

[Grumble]

As an outsider I must admit I am impressed with John Kerry.

This man will not jump into war without good reason I am sure, he knows for real what it is all about and he knows how to lead under exteme pressure.

To hear that he wants to bring in a health care system available and affordable for all Americans is something that I think is sorely needed in the worlds most prosperous country.

Wonder if social change like 4 weeks annual holiday for employees could be considered too.

I just hope that the election is not brought to a farcical result like the last one. I reckon the electoral college is a crock of shit, let the candidate getting the majority of the votes cast by the voters be the president.

Can't wait to see the last of George W.

[nikki1979]

i gotta say that i luv being an american and being able to vote and be able to pick who i want as pres. and as unpopular(in this thread) as this sounds im NOT democrat. repblicans generally are more military oriented and since im very pro military ive always voted republican. ya bush has his down falls (mian one being the against gay marraige thing) but i feel all have thier downfalls and i will stand behind our military.

nikki

[Lilith]

lakritze~ I also caught the speeches, I will with the Republican convention too. I must say Obama was magnificent. And John Edwards does this cute little nervous thing with his tongue :slurp:

[jseal]

Grumble

Many people think that there is a single election for the US president. This is not so. The US has 50 statewide ones. The winner of each state gets all of that state's votes in the Electoral College except in Maine and Nebraska, where the votes may be split. The Electoral College has 538 votes, which is the number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus 100 for the Senate plus three for the District of Columbia. All these elections occur on the same date, and so appear to be part of a single whole.

[Catch22]

Well as an outsider, the thing I noticed was when Edwards said that they will go after the terrorists and destroy them. That is the first time I have heard the word destroy used.

[Vigil]

Loved Mrs. Kerry - sexy lady!!

I wouldn't let her loose on the global diplomatic stage too much though. Maybe just Europe.

[lakritze]

I kinda think that Theresa Heinz Kerry has an Ingrid Bergman thing going for her. She is anamazing lady. It's about time we have a smart,hot,sexy first lady. Obama's speech was fantastic.He is a rising new star who will go far......

[Irish]

Grumble

Many people think that there is a single election for the US president. This is not so. The US has 50 statewide ones. The winner of each state gets all of that state's votes in the Electoral College except in Maine and Nebraska, where the votes may be split. The Electoral College has 538 votes, which is the number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus 100 for the Senate plus three for the District of Columbia. All these elections occur on the same date, and so appear to be part of a single whole.
It's nice to know that SOMEONE knows,how the election process works!I have
made a vow to myself,not to post anything political.I only tell my close friends,how I feel!Otherwise there is just a BIG argument! Irish
P.S.Besides,I'm not mature enough,to discuss politics,without losing my temper! :rolleyes:

[jseal]

lakritze,

Keep in mind that this is the end of the beginning. There is a lot of hard work that must be done over the next 3 months to turn it into the beginning of the end. I doubt that the Republicans will let Mr. Kerry and the Democrats enjoy the traditional “bounce” in the polls given by the convention. They have already set up a website, DemsExtremeMakeover.com. I got the message there that the Democrats are so ideologically bankrupt they need political plastic surgery to make them look like Republicans to ordinary Americans. Some polls suggest that the Republicans’ charges of “flip-flopper” against Mr. Kerry have stuck.

Don’t ease up now – incumbents are difficult to beat.

[lakritze]

www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19406/ If this is the worst thing that the conservatives can come up with,then is it enough? There are many gullable people in this land who will take this dreck as gospel but I think most of the country is waking up to the truth. What can the Republicans campagin on? Bush's 4 year record? Not if the want him reelected for another 4 years.So I guess they will have to resort to the only thing they do well. Slander,lies,tampering with the voting system in November like they did in 2000 and appealing to the lowest of the base feeling of fear and of course their grossly missguided view of patritism so expoused on in the publishings of their ilk such as Ann Coulter and David Horowitz.I wonder how a guy who has a spotty record at the very least in the Texas National Guard could even think of standing tall alongside somebody who saved the lives more than once of his fellow service men while on tour in Viet Nam?

[Grumble]

Jseal,

Thanks for explaining the process to me. It seems apparrent to me that it has a glaring flaw. The people who vote for the losing candidate in each state get completely disenfranchised. In my opinion, the will of the people would be fully implemented if the states put in their votes on a proportional basis according to the votes received by the candidates. A narrow win in a state with a lot of electoral votes could sway the election and a candidate with less than a majority of the total vote could win, a la George W.

The Australian senate is elected on proportional representation as it is made up of 12 senators from each state plus 1 from the Australian Capital Territory (our Washington DC equivalent) and the Northern Territory.

Our house of reps are elected using a preference system till one candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast.

[jseal]

lakritze,

Interesting. You assert that the Republicans were guilty of tampering with the voting system in 2000.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[Irish]

jseal---If I remember correctly,Lilith said once,that unless,you give examples,
things are only opinions.I have seen MANY ideas,but never an"in my opinion"!
Irish
P.S. my $.02.
P.P.S.jseal---I don't mean you!

[jseal]

Irish,

Indeed so sir. I have learned over time that people say the darndest things.

[jseal]

Grumble,

There are several voting systems which attempt to address the point you raise.

The upper house of our federal legislature, the Senate, is composed of two senators from each of the states - regardless of the state's population. This was implemented to prevent the heavily populated states from running roughshod over the preferences of the smaller states. This is an issue the EU must soon come to terms with. The proposed EU constitution is a reasonable, if bulky, attempt to do so.

The lower house, the House of Representatives, is proportionally representative of the population at large. A mandatory national census is taken every 10 years, and is used to determine the number of representatives a state may send to Congress. Needless to say, the census figures have on occasion been hotly contested. This proportional representation is made even more important as spending bills must originate from this body.

The executive, the President, here in the States comes to power in a way that is almost identical to that practiced by parliamentarian democracies such as those of Australia and the UK. The major difference is that here in the States we hold a special election to do so.

Consider the way that Tony Blair or John Howard came to hold their current positions. Having been elected as their party’s leaders, they campaigned for or against a set of policies. The electorate cast their ballots, and more candidates from Mr. Howard’s and Mr. Blair’s parties were elected to represent the people. Messrs. Howard and Blair then presented their credentials to their respective heads of state, who prudently entrusted the governance of the countries to the parties whose policies most closely matched those of the citizens

The way the Presidential game is played in the States is to appeal to the party to become the candidate, and to the electorate to become the President.

In the last presidential election, Senator Gore and Governor Bush each campaigned for or against a set of policies. The electorate cast their ballots, and the votes were counted in each state. If you now refer back to the composition of the Electoral College, you can see that it is vital to win the vote in the populous states. Governor Bush won the famous Florida count by some 530 odd votes, and thus was awarded all those votes for the Electoral College. He succeeded in winning the right mix of states.

Now for the entertaining part. Once this Great American Democracy has been saved from perdition for the nth time, and the votes are (eventually) in, the College of Electors meets. With much solemnity, they cast their votes for the forgone conclusion, and then they go home. That’s it. They have served their country well and faithfully, and having done so, return to the lives they led before the circus came to town. I always thought it somewhat anticlimactic, but there you are.

[Bilbo]

Consider the way that Tony Blair or John Howard came to hold their current positions. Having been elected as their party’s leaders, they campaigned for or against a set of policies. The electorate cast their ballots, and more candidates from Mr. Howard’s and Mr. Blair’s parties were elected to represent the people.

This part is true jseal


Messrs. Howard and Blair then presented their credentials to their respective heads of state, who prudently entrusted the governance of the countries to the parties whose policies most closely matched those of the citizens.

This is utter Frogshit

[PantyFanatic]

So the summery of that filibuster is that Grumbles is right in that a presidential candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election?

[Eros]

Politics schmolitics....BRING ON THE BUSH TWINS!!!!!

[scotzoidman]

So the summery of that filibuster is that Grumbles is right in that a presidential candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election?
& sadly, this was not the first time the system broke down, & probably won't be the last...it's an over-designed, anachronistic, Rube Goldberg contraption that was never right, & it's even more wrong as time goes by...

The Electorial College
Has no knowledge

[PantyFanatic]

Scotzoid

The electoral college was an attempt at rendering some sort of reliable reporting when communication and transportation WASN’T. It belongs in the shit-can with the thousand other governmental processes that didn’t work in the first place, so they were modified to what is a complete abomination and set in stone.

[Catch22]

We are not the same as the UK. While the Queen is the Head of State here she is so only on paper. Also with the Party system here the Party can replace the leader. A Clinton would not happen here. The Party would replace him. Also we all HAVE to vote.

[Irish]

We are not the same as the UK. While the Queen is the Head of State here she is so only on paper. Also with the Party system here the Party can replace the leader. A Clinton would not happen here. The Party would replace him. Also we all HAVE to vote.
Catch22---Do you mean that voting is mandatory?Just asking,I REALLY don't
know! Irish

[Sharni]

Compulsary Irish.....we get fined if we dont vote

[PantyFanatic]

Compulsary Irish.....we get fined if we dont vote
Very interesting.

[osuche]

Very interesting.


Same is true in Brasil. Because many people are illiterate and/or uneducated, theperson who bribes the most (typically they stand just outside the voting booths) generally gets this segment of the popular vote.

And...if you don't vote...you can't register your car, get social services, and several other important things.

[Vigil]

Seems to me that most elections in mature democracies are decided by the 5 - 10% of swing voters who sit on the fence for whatever reason. The politicians therefore spend all their time fighting for this non-partisan middle ground. The result of this is that they all end up sounding the same and taking the support of their ideological membership for granted and becoming uninteresting to a growing number of people, hence reducing turn out figures. I don't think forcing people to vote would make this situation any better as the whims of people would become even more influential.

The UK three party system nearly always means that the winning party and leader never has either a majority support of the population, nor even of those who bothered to vote.

I think it very advisable to restrict the powers of these people who are voted in on a whim by a minority of people.

[Catch22]

Catch22---Do you mean that voting is mandatory?Just asking,I REALLY don't
know! Irish

Yes Irish. I wonder how things would go over there if everyone over 18 HAD to vote. It tends to bring out more parties and more issues. Shows up more in State voting. You get large swings from voters. If people are unhappy and becasue they have to vote they let the Govt know it.

[Grumble]

Jseal,

The president is not only an elected official he is the head of state and can only be removed by resignation, death or after he has been impeached.

In Australia and the UK (Canda too I suspect), the prime minister who is the head of government is an elected member of the lower house (ie in US the house of Reps). A Prime Minister can be removed by his own party by electing another leader.

The President is not a member of either legislature to my knowledge.

There is a quite a different system in the US than in Australia or the UK.

[Grumble]

The UK three party system nearly always means that the winning party and leader never has either a majority support of the population, nor even of those who bothered to vote.



The first past the post system, ie the person who get the most primary votes wins, is not a very good system if you have more than 2 candidates. if you had 6 or 7 candidates a person with 20% of the votes cast could win.

When Australia set up their constitution (adopted in 1900 or 1901) it was lucky to have different models to work from (especially the USA and Great Britain). It is how the Aussie houses of Parliament are the House of Reps and the Senate, it was adopted from the US Constitution. A preferntial system of voting was also adopted because to win a seat you have to get more than 50% of the vote. This is done by voting for candidates on the voting slip in order of your preference. after counting, the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is excluded and his preferences allocated to the other candidates, then the second lowest till one person has reached more than 50% of the votes. Any close results are automatically recounted.

I think that Australia was well served by the gentlemen who drafted the constitution. Very few amendments have been made.

[Catch22]

To add to what Grumble has said. We will in time change from the Queen as head of State. What sort of republic we become only time will tell. I would hope people do not think we are like a Brazil or some other banana democracy. *hides his coffee & bananas*

[Sharni]

Australia changing to a republic is not a given fact....wether it happens well we will just have to wait and see

Personally i dont see any hassle with the way we are.....it's not like the Queen has much say here

[Catch22]

Australia changing to a republic is not a given fact....wether it happens well we will just have to wait and see

Personally i dont see any hassle with the way we are.....it's not like the Queen has much say here

Indeed. Nothing is a given. I recall when Clinton came out here and made a toast to our head of state Queen Liz and not a toast to Australia. The room went silent and even Howard didn't look to pleased.

[jseal]

This is utter Frogshit

Bilbo, I may be incorrect, but permit me to reference the relevant document:

The Constitution of Australia (http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_constitution_contents.htm) defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).

The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, Constitution).

The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution).

[Sharni]

I've been following along here...and sorry jseal i just cant see the relevance here

I thought 'we' were discussing electing Presidents/Prime Ministers....just cant see why you posted the above

[jseal]

Sharni,

I may be incorrect, but a response to Bilbo’s response seemed to be in order. It follows the pattern of the thread, I thought.

I had posted what I thought accurately described the process of forming an Australian national government. His post, indicating that he was unpersuaded by my line of thought, justified my presenting the source document which I used to develop my idea.

[Sharni]

I understand you needing to respond...just still dont get the response ya gave *L*

The Queen (as far as i know) rarely has a say here.....and yes we have her representative...the Governor General (which i might add the PM picks really..as he indicates to the Queen who would be suitable for the position) on our soil

But as far as i know (and i will admit to not being all into politics so i could be wrong)....We the public choose a party in the Federal elections...the party has a top dog so to speak....which ever party wins the percentage majority...their top dog gets the PM job


*"A member of parliament may cease to be Prime Minister in the following ways.

Dies in office. (Joseph Lyons died in 1939, John Curtin in 1945, and Harold Holt in 1967.)

Loses their seat in an election. (Stanley Bruce in 1929)

The government loses an election. (Paul Keating in 1996) The Prime Minister reverts to being a Member of Parliament sitting in the opposition.

The party votes to replace the PM with another member of Parliament. (William MacMahon replaced John Gorton in 1971)

The House of Representatives votes that the government no longer has enough Members to win a vote, so another government is formed at the request of the Governor-General. This rarely happens however."

*taken from here (http://www.peo.gov.au/resources/pm.html)

[jseal]

Pantyfanatic,

While it is true that my post could not be characterized as a “one liner”, or “sound bite”, there are, I’m sure you’ll agree, issues which are not satisfactorily served by such brevity. A filibuster is a tool used to obstruct or delay a debate. Judging from the responses my post has elicited, I’d say that it has had the opposite result.

I do agree with you in regards the anachronism of the Electoral College, although we tend to express our opinions differently. As this process is written into the federal constitution, it is as close to having been carved in stone as a process here can be. Only by an amendment to the Constitution or a Constitutional Convention can the Electoral College be replaced, both of which are most unlikely, so I’ll bet you’re right about that also. It is a piece of rococo eighteenth century democracy which will outlast both of us.

[Grumble]

Jseal,

I must commend you, you know more about the Australian Constitution than most Australians.

You are correct in that the Queen has the power to disallow laws and this is there to prevent a dictatorship or unconstitutional laws.

It has never been used and it is a precendent that the Governor General and the Queen accepts the advice of the Prime Minister of the day.

I do not know the actual words used when a successful Prime minister approaches the Governor General and presents his credentials.

Messrs. Howard and Blair then presented their credentials to their respective heads of state, who prudently entrusted the governance of the countries to the parties whose policies most closely matched those of the citizens.

I would think that Bilbo disagrees with "parties whose policies most closely matched those of the citizens"

I believe that the incoming Prime Minister informs the GG that he is able to form a government. (This would mean that the Goverment would command control of the parliament because they had the numbers to do so)

The constitution is not as simple as it seems and disputes on it are settled by the full bench of the High Court of Australia.

[Sharni]

The constitution is definately not simple *LOL*

The link i added in my last post has what its states as "unwritten rules are not defined in the Constitution"

It is an interesting read actually

[Catch22]

As you can see Aussies are good with politics and we are tanned and sexy. What catch! We can even eat meals without putting our elbows on the table! :)

[jseal]

...We can even eat meals without putting our elbows on the table! :)

Catch22,

May I retain your services? Both of my children delight in raising my blood pressure by doing so. Perhaps if someone else explained the principles to them, they would listen.

[Sharni]

That was a big no no in my house when i was growing up...my elbows would get knocked off the table and i'd end up face first in whatever dinner was at the time *LOL*...but i tell ya i dont EVER do it now...and nor do my kids

[jseal]

Grumble,

There is no doubt that there are major structural differences between the democracies of Australia and America. I expose my Anglophile tendencies when I say that I envy the discrimination between head of state and head of government. What I was attempting to describe were the great similarities in getting the PM or President into office.

Based upon Sharni’s two comments, your suggestion that Bilbo was criticizing the results of the election rather than the subsequent process makes sense. Perhaps any misinterpretation should be viewed in the light of the terseness of his comment. If he is indeed criticizing the results of the election, then he stands in good, if disappointed, democratic company. I can think of American Pixies who have had difficulties coming to grips with the result of the 2000 election, and others who remain dissatisfied with the two prior to that.

In re the Australian constitution and amendment count: yes, you seem to have done a rather good job of it. Australia must have called upon some penetrating thinkers and sensitive historians when it was being drafted.

[Catch22]

And that is the good thing about democracies. We have the right to be unhappy. When it came out in the war trials after ww2. Was there any oppositon by the German people to the Govt. The reply from Hermann Goering was: Not from anyone living.

[scotzoidman]

I believe it was Mr. Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others"

[jseal]

scotzoidman,

I did some checking, and it turns out that when the Electoral College received its current form in the 12th Amendment, the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

The Electoral College system imposes two requirements on candidates for the presidency:

1. that the victor obtain a sufficient popular vote to enable the winner to govern (although this may not be the absolute majority), and
2. that such a popular vote be sufficiently distributed across the country to enable the winner to govern.

Such an arrangement ensures a regional balance of support which is a vital consideration in governing a large and diverse nation. At the same time I also discovered that the Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate to whom they had been pledged! I have this vision that following a large infusion of money, following the election – Al Sharpton emerges as the President Elect!

[Irish]

I know that Tawana Brawley(sp?)will vote for him! Irish :eek:

[jseal]

Irish,

OK, I'll bite. Who's Tawana Brawley?

[Irish]

I don't remember the story exactly,but years ago,she was supposed to be a
black girl,that (according to him)was raped by white men.I believe the story was eventually proven to be a hoax.It's another of his stories about the White
Man,picking on the Blacks.Don't hold me to this,verbatum,The details are only
from memory.I think that he was fined,??money,but never paid.It's kind of hard,to pay a fine,when you've never held a "real" job! Irish
P.S.There is,probably,some kind of search,that you could do.As said,the details are only from memory. :jester:

[jseal]

Irish,

Ms. Brawley may have served as a role model for the French woman who falsely claimed she had been the victim of an anti-Semitic attack last month. She has admitted inventing a story of an attack by a gang of North Africans on a Paris suburban train.

[fredchabotnick]

Grumble

Many people think that there is a single election for the US president. This is not so. The US has 50 statewide ones. The winner of each state gets all of that state's votes in the Electoral College except in Maine and Nebraska, where the votes may be split. The Electoral College has 538 votes, which is the number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus 100 for the Senate plus three for the District of Columbia. All these elections occur on the same date, and so appear to be part of a single whole.

Other than sheer inertia, is there any reason to still have the electoral college? I made great sense in the past, but as the technology exists to actually count each vote, why can't we get rid of it. It might be nice to have a president that was actually elected by the most votes.

[MilkToast]

Other than sheer inertia, is there any reason to still have the electoral college? I made great sense in the past, but as the technology exists to actually count each vote, why can't we get rid of it. It might be nice to have a president that was actually elected by the most votes.
:eek: you really want to allow people to choose for themselves in this day and age... preposterous!!!!!!!! We can barely get the technology to a place that allows the vote to occur in a somewhat accurate manor as it is.... can you imagine the name calling and accusations if an election came down to just a few votes... oh wait... that already happened!

[fredchabotnick]

:eek: you really want to allow people to choose for themselves in this day and age... preposterous!!!!!!!! We can barely get the technology to a place that allows the vote to occur in a somewhat accurate manor as it is.... can you imagine the name calling and accusations if an election came down to just a few votes... oh wait... that already happened!

Good lord, what was I thinking. We can't just let people vote. We need criteria! I've you've ever voted in American Idol, you can't vote for president. If you believe that a bunch of rich white guy laywers who went to Ivy league schools care about lower and middle class slobs, you're out. If you think that you need a 64 oz Huge Ass Gulp (or whatever it's called) from 7-11, so sorry. Am I missing anything :-) Or they could just play rock paper scissors.

[scotzoidman]

Good lord, what was I thinking. We can't just let people vote. We need criteria! I've you've ever voted in American Idol, you can't vote for president. If you believe that a bunch of rich white guy laywers who went to Ivy league schools care about lower and middle class slobs, you're out. If you think that you need a 64 oz Huge Ass Gulp (or whatever it's called) from 7-11, so sorry. Am I missing anything :-) Or they could just play rock paper scissors.
or if you've ever been on Jerry Springer, you're definitely out!

[jseal]

...It might be nice to have a president that was actually elected by the most votes...


fredchabotnick,

That was not the intent of the Electoral College. Ref my post to scotzoidman above. Perhaps that should be changed, but that would require a constitutional amendment. As there have been four - or three, depending – occasions where the candidate who received the most popular votes failed to become president, it doesn’t seem to be that big of a problem.

[scotzoidman]

jseal, 4 occasions computes to nearly ten percent failure rate...maybe acceptable in some situations, but for choosing our leaders, I find it appalling...& if memory serves, the previous occasions resulted in ineffective one-term presidents...

[jseal]

scotzoidman,

It could only be considered a failure if the presumption is that the candidate with the most votes should be the president. As best as I can tell, that is not the way the Electoral College works – and not how it was intended to work. Do you read it differently? This is not to say that it cannot be replaced with a popular vote based approach, but a structural change of that order may be a difficult sell. You couldn’t point to England, Australia or Canada as models.

The election of 1824 could be identified as the first in which the candidate who obtained the greatest popular vote (Jackson) failed to be elected president. The claim is a weak one, though, since six of the twenty four States at the time still chose their Electors in the State legislature. Some of these (such as the populous New York) would likely have returned large majorities for Adams had they conducted a popular election. You’re not seriously suggesting that Andrew Jackson should have become president with less than 50% of the popular vote, are you?

In 1876, Hayes had announced in advance that he would serve only one term.

Benjamin Harrison's election in 1888 is really the only clear-cut instance in which the Electoral College vote went contrary to the popular vote. This happened because the incumbent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, ran up huge popular majorities in several of the 18 States which supported him while the Republican challenger, Benjamin Harrison, won only slender majorities in some of the larger of the 20 States which supported him (most notably in Cleveland's home State of New York). Even so, the difference between them was less than 111,000 votes out of more than 11,000,000 cast - less than 1% of the total. Interestingly, in this case, there were few issues other than tariffs (Harrison for, Cleveland against) separating the candidates so that the election seems to have been fought - and won - more on the basis of superior party organization in getting out the vote than on the issues of the day. I find this strikingly similar to what happened between Messrs. Gore and Bush.

And, of course, the election of 2000. It seems somewhat presumptuous to refer to that winner as a one term president (even if the presumption seems appropriate).

[Irish]

I have had several acuaintances,that were,hugely,popular,in a variety of circles.They may have been popular,but their decisions,wouldn't be right for
a country!Being popular,doesn't mean that you can make the correct decisions.It still remains that,if your candidate,didn't win,there will always be
"sour" grapes! Irish

[Belial]

Sorry to steal your catchcry Sharni...but that smells of frogshit to me :D

Having one's name checked off of the electoral roll and submitting a ballot paper is compulsory only for those enrolled to vote. Being eligible to enroll to vote (being over 18) does not compel one to enroll to vote. If you don't enroll to vote, you won't go on the electoral roll and so won't be compelled to vote. Of course, once you're on, you can't remove yourself, but I have friends who are nearing their mid-20s and are not enrolled to vote.

Even if you are enrolled to vote, there is nothing compelling you to actually write anything on your ballot paper. Plenty of people submit a blank ballot paper, it's called "voting informally".

So essentially, you can sign yourself up to be forced to go through the rigmarole of showing up to a place of voting until you snuff it, but even then you don't have to submit your preferences. So I'd say that voting is not compulsory for all intents and purposes in Australia.


Compulsary Irish.....we get fined if we dont vote

[jseal]

Belial,

I think Sharni and Catch22 were merely pointing out one of the differences between the Australian and American election processes. In Australia, the state may penalize voter non-participation, while in America in cannot.

People can be VERY difficult to organize, as your example illustrates.

[Sharni]

Sorry to steal your catchcry Sharni...but that smells of frogshit to me :D

Having one's name checked off of the electoral roll and submitting a ballot paper is compulsory only for those enrolled to vote. Being eligible to enroll to vote (being over 18) does not compel one to enroll to vote. If you don't enroll to vote, you won't go on the electoral roll and so won't be compelled to vote. Of course, once you're on, you can't remove yourself, but I have friends who are nearing their mid-20s and are not enrolled to vote.

Even if you are enrolled to vote, there is nothing compelling you to actually write anything on your ballot paper. Plenty of people submit a blank ballot paper, it's called "voting informally".

So essentially, you can sign yourself up to be forced to go through the rigmarole of showing up to a place of voting until you snuff it, but even then you don't have to submit your preferences. So I'd say that voting is not compulsory for all intents and purposes in Australia.
*LOL*....most politics is frogshit Belial

As for the not enrolling...just because they dont know your there doesnt mean its wrong to not enrol...by law you are sposed to enrol and vote...bit like tax dodging...illegal but ppl do it...still not right eh

Your are being given the chance to have your say on how you want your country run....the whole hiding or donkey voting is a crock of shit...stand up and be counted...your missed vote may have been the deciding vote for all you know...and you've just flushed it down the toilet

[Catch22]

I wouldn't go all the way to a polling booth and then put a blank paper in the box. Would vote for someone. Even if it was just the silly walks party!

[Belial]

*LOL*....most politics is frogshit Belial

As for the not enrolling...just because they dont know your there doesnt mean its wrong to not enrol...by law you are sposed to enrol and vote...bit like tax dodging...illegal but ppl do it...still not right eh
[/colour]

I didn't know that, and apparently, you're right. It sounds a bit stupid to have a compulsory enrolment process.

[color=blue]
Your are being given the chance to have your say on how you want your country run....the whole hiding or donkey voting is a crock of shit...stand up and be counted...your missed vote may have been the deciding vote for all you know...and you've just flushed it down the toilet

Many people would see it as an appropriate response to a pointless exercise, and that the odds of their vote deciding anything is somewhere in the area of being struck by lightning on the way home. And the unfortunate part is that many of them are right.

[Sharni]

I understand what ppl think about the odds....but you dont vote...imagine how many others choose to do the same...could be hundreds of thousands for all we know....if each one of them had a say...well ya just never know what an electoral outcome might be eh

The ppls voice can be a damn powerful tool...but only if we all stand together...sitting on the fence and complaining to all that the current government sucks (or not) is not the right thing to do in my books....but if you've voted...like me....then ya have every right to whinge *LOL*

The ones that do nothing have just that...nothing! No enrolment....No say...No right to complain about the result (after all you left it up to others to choose for you)

If ya dont like something then damnwell stand up and try to change it

Ok...going now *LOL*

[scotzoidman]

Sharni, I like the idea of having some sort of compulsary law in place, even if it's not foolproof...makes me ashamed when I hear of people in emerging democracies braving bullets and/or death squads to vote in their 1st elections, when less than half of us in the so-called developed countries can't be bothered to go out & vote cuz it's raining or [insert lame-ass excuse here]

[Belial]

I'd really much rather perv than walk to a booth to decide between Pepsi and Coke. My "lame-ass excuse" is that it's completely pointless.

[Grumble]

My take on compulsary voting is this.

A democracy only operates properly if the people do their duty and vote.

We all have rights in a democracy and hand in hand with rights goes responsibilities. You have no say in paying taxes you have to and voting is in the same category. So you vote or get fined.

It does get a much more representative result. Not too many people vote informally. Often the ones that vote informally do so because of their misunderstanding of how to vote not through submitting a blank voting slip.

[Lilith]

Sharni, I like the idea of having some sort of compulsary law in place, even if it's not foolproof...makes me ashamed when I hear of people in emerging democracies braving bullets and/or death squads to vote in their 1st elections, when less than half of us in the so-called developed countries can't be bothered to go out & vote cuz it's raining or [insert lame-ass excuse here]
Amen Scotzoid....typically closer to 30% here but we still find the need to exalt democracy to the rest of the world. Bit hypocritical.

[GingerV]

I've got a friend who told me in October 2000 that he didn't think his vote mattered. He lives in Florida. Three years ago, he told me to quit forwarding him news articles with the subject line "does it matter yet?" He'd gotten the point. Damn good thing he loves me, cause I can be annoying as hell sometimes.

I've always been fascinated by Australia's mandatory voting policies....but they've kind of left me wondering about something. Pixies seems as good a place to ask as any, since it's on topic in this thread: if you knew that you would be forced to vote, would it make you any more interested in paying attention to the issues around you? Or would those who don't care today (not the only reason not to vote, just one that puzzles me) vote casually and ignorantly? Not that I'm saying that some of the votes that ARE cast aren't done in ignorance....just curious to know if the new votes wouldn't just make the signal/noise problem worse.

Wandering back to the pics now ;),

G

[Sharni]

See i dont see it as being forced...i see it as being given a chance to have my say....but thats me

The law that says you have to enrol and vote at 18 have been in here for quite a while now....it to me...is just part of being Australian

What the slackers/non voters do is their choice....

[Grumble]

I am like Sharni, I have always considered a priviledge to vote and always take the opportunity to do so. Local council elections are not compulsary and a 30% turnout is considered good.

The idea that people may not know what they are voting for is virtually a moot question really. The ones that vote in the USA would be mainly polarised voters who support a party and they would vote for that party regardless if the other had better policies.

[Belial]

I don't agree that compulsory voting is an essential part of the democratic process nor that it necessarily affords one a say in the running of the country.

Compulsory voting requires one to endorse a candidates, or in preferential systems, endorse multiple candidates to different degrees. When there are no suitable candidates (in the voter's eyes), the voter must endorse a candidate they do not support. I would much rather the option of offering no candidate my support if I do not wish to do so.

Saying that every voter gets a say in the running of the country assumes that there is a candidate(s) agreeing with the voter on how the country should be run. Let's say, for example, that I believe funding to higher education should be increased, however, no candidate has any commitment to do so. What say do I have in the running of the country, at least as far as this single issue is concerned? What if I find that on all the issues that matter to me, no candidate adequately represents me? Am I to vote against my own views?

To me it's like being locked in a room with a drink vending machine, and you can't leave until you've had a drink. What is there for the voter that sees Coke, Pepsi, Fanta, Sprite, and says "fuck that, if there's no water I'll pass"?

[Catch22]

At my age one is always passing water! :)

[Irish]

After the fiasco,over my last post,I wasn't going to post anymore,but I have to give an example.My wife & I,have many times voted,for what we considered,the best of two evils.There is also always,a spot,to write in another name.To think that your vote doesn't count,is alot of crap!
Ex:We,technically,live in Barrington NH.My property,is on the border of Barrington & Rochester.A FEW yrs ago,Barrington had no kindergarden.Our
oldest daughter thought that her kids,would benifit from a kindergarden.She
bugged,my wife & I,her sister & husband & her husband,to vote for kindergarden,in the next election.(Town)Kindergarden passed by 12 votes.
My wife & I,=2,youngest daughter & husband=2,Oldest daughter & husband =
2. 2+2+2=6.That's 1/2 of the passing votes,so don't tell me that individual
votes,don't count! Irish

[lakritze]

The only prefix I would like to see in front of Democracy is Participatory.In order for it to work,Democracy needs everybody's participation and not just in the voting booth.We don't have to agree on everything everytime. There is plenty of room for differences.But I believe the long road to putting Bush in the White House began with the realization that less than half of the people bother to vote.

[Sharni]

My wife & I,have many times voted,for what we considered,the best of two evils.To think that your vote doesn't count,is alot of crap!

Exactly!!

If you think that a polition will ever come along with ALL your views as his policies...sorry but your living in a fantasy world

You make the best of what you DO have to chose from

[Belial]

Exactly!!

If you think that a polition will ever come along with ALL your views as his policies...sorry but your living in a fantasy world

You make the best of what you DO have to chose from

Like I said, some people find that NO candidate represents ANY of their views on important issues...not that none of them represent ALL their views.

How do you make the best of that situation?

[Belial]

After the fiasco,over my last post,I wasn't going to post anymore,but I have to give an example.My wife & I,have many times voted,for what we considered,the best of two evils.There is also always,a spot,to write in another name.To think that your vote doesn't count,is alot of crap!
Ex:We,technically,live in Barrington NH.My property,is on the border of Barrington & Rochester.A FEW yrs ago,Barrington had no kindergarden.Our
oldest daughter thought that her kids,would benifit from a kindergarden.She
bugged,my wife & I,her sister & husband & her husband,to vote for kindergarden,in the next election.(Town)Kindergarden passed by 12 votes.
My wife & I,=2,youngest daughter & husband=2,Oldest daughter & husband =
2. 2+2+2=6.That's 1/2 of the passing votes,so don't tell me that individual
votes,don't count! Irish

Many elections are on a slightly larger scale. If a particular candidate wins, does it matter whether they win by a landslide, or a close call?

[Sharni]

Depends if your the winner or the loser i spose *L*

[Sharni]

Like I said, some people find that NO candidate represents ANY of their views on important issues...not that none of them represent ALL their views.

How do you make the best of that situation?

Again....you make the best of what you DO have to choose from

[Belial]

Again....you make the best of what you DO have to choose from

How?

You have x candidates and they're all on an equally bad footing. Do you roll dice?

[Sharni]

*sigh* do you have issues with making any decisions in real life?

Ya weigh all their pros and cons....then ya choose the ones i'd prefer in power...easy really

[Belial]

*sigh* do you have issues with making any decisions in real life?


Well usually when I make decisions in real life there exist choices where I stand to benefit.

[colur=blue]
Ya weigh all their pros and cons....then ya choose the ones i'd prefer in power...easy really[/color]

How do you weigh say 5 cons against 5 cons against 5 cons against...(etc)?

[Sharni]

*LOL*...i'd have thought that just a simple....

Ya pick the best cons outta em all...Ok example

Your given a choice: Die in your sleep...or....Die in a horrific painful accident?

I dont wanna die period but i have to make a choice.

For me the lesser of the two CONS is To die in my sleep....so that would be my choice...simple

Ya make a choice the best you can with whats been offered you!!

[Belial]

*LOL*...i'd have thought that just a simple....

Ya pick the best cons outta em all...Ok example

Your given a choice: Die in your sleep...or....Die in a horrific painful accident?

I dont wanna die period but i have to make a choice.

For me the lesser of the two CONS is To die in my sleep....so that would be my choice...simple

Ya make a choice the best you can with whats been offered you!!

It's not the same thing.

Dying is inevitable. Voting is only inevitable because a few people decided it should be so.

I wasn't referring to the candidates themselves as cons. What I meant is, say I take into consideration 5 important issues when deciding who to vote for. If all candidates disagree with me on all 5 issues, they all have 0 pros and 5 cons, so there's no seperating them.

[Sharni]

The theory behind it is the same thing!

In this country voting IS inevitable

5 important issues (eg: living was not an issue) is irrelevant
You need to make a choice on what they ARE offering you!! (the die in sleep or accident anology)

Ya make a choice the best you can with what is offered you!

[Belial]

The theory behind it is the same thing!

In this country voting IS inevitable

5 important issues (eg: living was not an issue) is irrelevant
You need to make a choice on what they ARE offering you!! (the die in sleep or accident anology)

Ya make a choice the best you can with what is offered you!

It's inevitable because somebody decided to impose it. Death is natural and at this time no human intervention can do anything about it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say important issues are irrelevant. When forced to vote for a candidate their stance on important issues is pretty relevant to me. When all candidates disagree with me that leaves me with no criteria with which to seperate them and decide who is "the best" of those offered.

[Sharni]

*LOL*...i give up

I've explained it over and over....if ya cant get it now ya never will!

[Belial]

*LOL*...i give up

I've explained it over and over....if ya cant get it now ya never will!

My feelings exactly. I guess I'll never understand how you choose the best of a set of equally bad candidates.

[Sharni]

The difference between us is i understand your side....dont agree with it at all....but you cant or wont understand mine *LOL*

Such is life

[Belial]

The difference between us is i understand your side....dont agree with it at all....but you cant or wont understand mine *LOL*

Such is life

Then why did you continue to insist that one must pick "the best" candidate when I explained that for many people there is no "best"?

I understand what you're saying. I just don't understand your reasoning.

[Sharni]

Because you kept asking me HOW *LMAO* and saying you DIDNT understand

[Belial]

Because you kept asking me HOW *LMAO* and saying you DIDNT understand

I understood that you were saying you vote for the "best" candidate, but I didn't and still don't understand how you pick a "best" when they are for all intents and purposes, the same. I don't recall you ever telling me how you can do that.

[Lilith]

No 2 humans I have ever met/seen are the same.

[Belial]

No 2 humans I have ever met/seen are the same.

Two political candidates who both disagree with any given voter on the issues that the voters uses as criteria to decide who to vote for are for all intents and purposes, the same.

[Lilith]

Not for me...because I would then look into their personal attributes to deside which would do the job more effectively.

[Sharni]

I have explained HOW i pick the best on numerous occassions....like i said you cant or wont see it

[Belial]

I have explained HOW i pick the best on numerous occassions....like i said you cant or wont see it
You explained that you "take what you're given", "pick the best cons" and "weight the pros and cons". You did not say how you could pick a "best" when weighing the pros and cons leaves all on an equal footing, which is what I've been asking in my past dozen or so posts.

[Lilith]

Belial...did you read my post? That is how people decide when faced with candidates with similar views on the issues...we have primaries in the US and many of those candidates have exactly the same stand on the key issues. You start looking at their personalities,credibility and experiences.

[Sharni]

I have and you are just being difficult

[Belial]

Belial...did you read my post? That is how people decide when faced with candidates with similar views on the issues...we have primaries in the US and many of those candidates have exactly the same stand on the key issues. You start looking at their personalities,credibility and experiences.
Yes I did and I don't think it's necessarily relevant, unless such examination reveals a tendency to repudiate on key issues.

[Belial]

I have and you are just being difficult
Whatever you say.

[Irish]

Maybe we are better off with Belial NOT voting!He obviously wants a
perfect world & we just as obviously DON'T have one Irish

[Belial]

Maybe we are better off with Belial NOT voting!He obviously wants a
perfect world & we just as obviously DON'T have one Irish

I do vote.

I'd just rather not be forced to.

[jseal]

Grumble,

There is something to what you say. My mother in law (God rest her soul) was a true, dyed in the wool, Blue Collar Democrat, who lived her life in a working class environment. From an early age, she was taught the right way to vote, and did so each election – with only one exception. In 1968, unhappy with Hubert Humphrey’s overly liberal tendencies, she voted for his opponent. Suitably chastised by subsequent events, she never again strayed from the fold. True story!

The reason I tell the story above, is that the only qualification I would suggest would be to change “polarized” to “uncritical”. Many regular voters here in the States don’t leave their comfort zone. Not so much, I believe, because they are particularly passionate about their party’s policies (polarized), but rather because it is easier to vote the same (uncritical) way again than it is to evaluate the differences between the usual two choices.

[Steph]

When all candidates disagree with me that leaves me with no criteria with which to seperate them and decide who is "the best" of those offered.

What are you looking for in a candidate then?

[Grumble]

Jseal,

I would consider myself a well informed and thinking voter. I have generally voted for one party because they more represent my views on major issues than the the other side of the political fence.

Once in the senate there was a particular candidate endorsed by the party I follow, whom I detested. I think there were 27 candidates and I made sure I voted for the lot so I could put him last LOL. BTW he wasn't elected :)

I had a lot of satifaction being able to express my disapproval that way.

There are sure to be just as well informed and thinking voters who have opposite views to mine so it is best to get the most representative vote that you can so that you do get a majority view.

It is a terrible shame that people are too lazy, disinterested or whatever to vote. Had Hitler and Japan been allowed to overcome the world you wouldn't be allowed to vote. All those millions of people died fighting to let us be free and such is the apathy that a majority of Americans choose not to.

Let it be said that were it not compulsary in Australia, the same would happen. hitting the citizens in the hip pocket nerve is far more efective than any other method it seems.

[Grumble]

Belial,

You are required to vote because it is the law and your duty as a citizen of Australia.

Whilst you have to vote you do not have to vote for people you do not wish for. Just leave the ballot paper blank or write you are all a useless lot of arseholes on it if you want.

I have no idea what sort of views you have or want a candidate to have. Just remember that whatever or whoever we have running the country needs to be able provide for employment, services, defence and all the things you need to make a nation function. Airy fairy notions never seem to make that happen.

[Catch22]

Belial run for office yourself as an Independent. :)

[Belial]

I have no idea what sort of views you have or want a candidate to have. Just remember that whatever or whoever we have running the country needs to be able provide for employment, services, defence and all the things you need to make a nation function. Airy fairy notions never seem to make that happen.


"Airy fairy notions"?

What exactly are you trying to imply, Grumble?

[Grumble]

"Airy fairy notions"?

What exactly are you trying to imply, Grumble?

Not implying anything but making the comment that candidates who are all het up on one issue tickets or too extreme like

a)
supergreen don't touch anything or cut anything down means that there are heaps less jobs and less resources available to live
b)
build things at any cost - we end up with no natural things at all after a while.

are dangerous and cannot fulfill the needs of the people

the course is in between these extremes.


and the "Land rights for Gay Whales" (yes it is a joke LOL) sort of candidate is Airy Fairy and would do no one any good in parliament.