Free and Fair Elections (a political thread)

[oggbashan]

From a distance, US politics do not appear to lead to 'free and fair elections'.

Special interest groups; campaign contibutions; campaigns against candidates by 'unconnected' bodies; and the dubious legality of some politicians' financial affairs all seem to tarnish the whole US political system.

Do US politicians assume that the rest of the world envies their political system? Democracy does not seem to be enhanced by the US Presidential elections (not just the current one but by those over the past forty years).

Is it hubris to send US politicians to monitor other countries' elections to see if they are 'free and fair' when the US system itself is compromised?

In the UK I cannot say that our political system is without flaw but I consider that it is much more honest than the US system. I trust the elections to deliver a fair unbiased result and I trust those elected as well as most others do - on a par with estate agents (realtors) and car salesmen.

Our current House of Lords, even with political appointees, is a restraining influence on the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, delaying or modifying any unwise legislation.

I think that most European countries have fairer electoral systems than the US.

How can the US expect to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to a democratic system when the US's own system appears to exhibit all the disadvantages?

Og

 

[doormouse]

ohhhhhhh...... sorry.

I thought it said free eRections... my bad

 

[matriarch]

From a distance, US politics do not appear to lead to 'free and fair elections'.

Special interest groups; campaign contibutions; campaigns against candidates by 'unconnected' bodies; and the dubious legality of some politicians' financial affairs all seem to tarnish the whole US political system.

Do US politicians assume that the rest of the world envies their political system? Democracy does not seem to be enhanced by the US Presidential elections (not just the current one but by those over the past forty years).

Is it hubris to send US politicians to monitor other countries' elections to see if they are 'free and fair' when the US system itself is compromised?

In the UK I cannot say that our political system is without flaw but I consider that it is much more honest than the US system. I trust the elections to deliver a fair unbiased result and I trust those elected as well as most others do - on a par with estate agents (realtors) and car salesmen.

Our current House of Lords, even with political appointees, is a restraining influence on the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, delaying or modifying any unwise legislation.

I think that most European countries have fairer electoral systems than the US.

How can the US expect to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to a democratic system when the US's own system appears to exhibit all the disadvantages?

Og

Oooooh..................brave Ogg *backing out slowly awaiting the backlash, not wanting to get caught up in it.*

 

[Liar]

A question to the brits:

I don't know the exact term for this but your parlament...do they represant the voters proportionally, or are they representing the majority in different geographical sections (countys, states, shires, whatever they are called)? I have heard that it's the latter, and that it creates the same kind of two party system (tory/labour vs con/dem) that the US have. I think that is a bigger democracy problem than the issue of the US politicians' trustworthyness.

What I see in both the US and the UK are two large parties that both move ideologically closer and closer to each other and political middle ground in an effort to please each and every potentional voter. And any alternative there might be to those giants have no chance in hell to make their voice heard, because voting on a smaller party with more radical politics and/or controversial ideas will mean squat. Even if you have 20% of the voters choosing a third way, their choice will have no representation in the country's highest congregation, because they didn't reach the majority in one particular neck of the woods.

 

[Guest]

From a distance, US politics do not appear to lead to 'free and fair elections'.

Special interest groups; campaign contibutions; campaigns against candidates by 'unconnected' bodies; and the dubious legality of some politicians' financial affairs all seem to tarnish the whole US political system.

Do US politicians assume that the rest of the world envies their political system? Democracy does not seem to be enhanced by the US Presidential elections (not just the current one but by those over the past forty years).

Is it hubris to send US politicians to monitor other countries' elections to see if they are 'free and fair' when the US system itself is compromised?

In the UK I cannot say that our political system is without flaw but I consider that it is much more honest than the US system. I trust the elections to deliver a fair unbiased result and I trust those elected as well as most others do - on a par with estate agents (realtors) and car salesmen.

Our current House of Lords, even with political appointees, is a restraining influence on the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, delaying or modifying any unwise legislation.

I think that most European countries have fairer electoral systems than the US.

How can the US expect to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to a democratic system when the US's own system appears to exhibit all the disadvantages?

Og

I don't think we will ever win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. But quite honestly I truly doubt the fairness of most electoral systems in existence today.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think most of us in the US know that our entire political system is seriously fucked up, and those of us who choose to do a little thinking on our own realize that we're now living in an exploitive plutocracy which is getting exponentially worse and more blatant every day.

I also think that most of us who go beyond the slogans realize that the US really has no interest in exporting democracy. When we talk about establishing democracy we're really just talking about establishing regimes which are friendly to our commercial interests. If dictators are amenable to American business, then we're just fine with them.

---dr.M.

 

[minsue]

What I see in both the US and the UK are two large parties that both move ideologically closer and closer to each other and political middle ground in an effort to please each and every potentional voter.

I don't see that happening in the US. On some issues, yes, but on the whole I see the two large parties moving farther and farther apart. Our entire country, IMO, is becoming unbelievably polarized.

 

[oggbashan]

A question to the brits:

I don't know the exact term for this but your parlament...do they represant the voters proportionally, or are they representing the majority in different geographical sections (countys, states, shires, whatever they are called)? I have heard that it's the latter, and that it creates the same kind of two party system (tory/labour vs con/dem) that the US have. I think that is a bigger democracy problem than the issue of the US politicians' trustworthyness.

What I see in both the US and the UK are two large parties that both move ideologically closer and closer to each other and political middle ground in an effort to please each and every potentional voter. And any alternative there might be to those giants have no chance in hell to make their voice heard, because voting on a smaller party with more radical politics and/or controversial ideas will mean squat. Even if you have 20% of the voters choosing a third way, their choice will have no representation in the country's highest congregation, because they didn't reach the majority in one particular neck of the woods.

Each Member of Parliament represents a single constituency of about 60,000 people. There are three main parties - Labour, Conservative and Liberal/Democrat. There are minority parties as well - Scots Nationalists, Welsh Nationalists, Northern Irish.

Each Member of Parliament is elected by the 'first past the post system' - if they get most votes in the constituency they are elected. In some constituencies that have a built in bias (known as 'safe' seats) whoever the majority party chooses will be elected regardless of the candidate's personal merits. However 'safe' seats do not decide which party forms the government.

The third party (Liberal Democrats) has come close to getting enough votes to be the largest party. They have had enough in the past to form be junior partners in a government with the Labour party. The next election could be interesting. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. The Labour and Conservative parties were for the war. The Liberal Democrats, although opposed to the war, support the troops once they are committed. That is traditional in the UK - once a decision is taken those given the task are supported by almost everyone. At the moment the polls say that all three parties are neck and neck and any one of them could win the most seats.

Labour has a large majority from the last election mainly because the Conservatives were fighting among themselves over the UK's membership of the European Community. Labour would expect to lose seats to the Conservatives next time because the last election was more in their favour than they ever expected. They may also lose seats to the Liberal Democrats. How many they lose to each will decide which party is in Government next time.

In elections for the European Parliament a different system is used which has wider constituencies and the Members of the European Parliament are selected in proportion to the parties' total of the votes. That allows minority parties to have a few seats.

Proportional representation is suggested for elections for the UK parliament. If the Liberal Democrats win enough seats to force another party to cooperate with them the price for that cooperation will be proportional representation for future elections. Labour and Conservative do not want that because they will lose MPs.

There is a significant difference between the two main parties, Labour and Conservative, but all three parties agree on more things than they disagree about. The policies where they differ get more publicity. For example all three parties are committed to NATO and to the 'special relationship' with the US so those things aren't mentioned much.

Changes in Europe in recent months make it more palatable to British ideas and the influence of France and Germany in the newly widened Europe is less than they were. Europe may not be a major issue at the next election but Iraq may be.

What has happened in recent years is that the Labour party 'New Labour' has adopted many of the policies that were previously Conservative. That is causing strains in the Labour movement. Those strains might cause trouble for Tony Blair at the next election. If Labour is fighting itself and the Conservatives are united then the result is anyone's guess - it could be a three-way split or worse still a major party in control only with the help of the really small parties such as Scottish Nationalists.

The three main parties are trying to define their differences in stark terms that don't really exist. The old beliefs that Labour was for the workers, and Conservative for the employers don't apply any more.

The next UK election will be interesting to watch both as a UK citizen and as a student of politics. The last few days could swing the result.

Og

 

[minsue]

Is it hubris to send US politicians to monitor other countries' elections to see if they are 'free and fair' when the US system itself is compromised?

Yes.

 

[R. Richard]

oggbashan:
OK, this is my opportunity to become a bit more educated. I understand that one of the 'dirty little secrets' about the British system is something called 'rotten districts.' Could you please explain? TIA.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... 'dirty little secrets' about the British system is something called 'rotten districts.' ...

You don't mean Rotten Boroughs do you?

 

[matriarch]

You don't mean Rotten Boroughs do you?

If he does, he's a 100 or so years out of date.
As far as I'm aware, they don't exist any more.



Rotten Boroughs


Mat

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I’ve been reading a lot of fiction set in England around the time of the American revolution, and one of the things we never hear much about over in the USA are the anti-democratic, pro-monarchy arguments that were current at that time. Not everyone was dead set against British rule. The British system had its staunch defenders.

The monarchists generally characterized democracy as little better than anarchy and saw it as mob rule. In their view, of course, not all people were fit to rule, and the aristocracy were considered the political experts. It was thought that government should be left in the hands of the experts. The mob could be manipulated by anyone with money (or whiskey, which was more acceptable in those days) to serve out. It was largely felt that elections would quite simply be bought by the wealthiest candidates and that politicians would always choose to do what was more popular rather than what really had to be done.

Given the way American politics has gone, and the fact that those people who even bother to vote more often vote on the candidate’s personality or hair cut than his policies, you have to wonder if maybe there wasn’t something to their arguments. Democracy has been said to be the political system in which people get the kind of government they deserve, and that seems to be true.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

In former Treasury Secretary O'Neill's, "The Price of Loyalty," he describes a division of GWB's advisors into two distinct groups: those who claimed their loyalty belonged to the President, "no matter what," and those who considered themselves servants to something greater than one man. Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, O'Neill and a few others can be seen, in the meeting transcripts quoted in the book, as a group of constantly surprised outsiders, like actors in a play for which only half the cast has been given the script.

Even within one administration, there's no one kind of politician.

There are a few whose belief in democracy is deeply ingrained, and who would like to see more people participating in the system. And there are the power elite for whom democracy is a necessary evil. These are the ideological heirs to the people who opposed expanding the electorate to include blacks, and later, women; and they're the brothers - literally, in one case - of the people in states like Florida who have focused substantial public resources on a "purge" of mostly black, mostly poor voters from error-filled lists of ex-felons.

The more people who vote, the less the electorate resembles the upper economic classes; and the more difficult and expensive it becomes to convince a majority of us that we all benefit from the same policies that so clearly benefit the rich. Consider that the White House is occupied by a man who lost the majority vote, and you begin to see how much effort is required to get and keep power when you're working so transparently for the benefit of few.

The American power elite probably don't much care what you or your politicians think of the way they do business - and business is what they're doing, whether it's disguised as democracy or something else. If they imagine themselves envied by your politicians, they probably are. Not for the way they're elected, but for the shrewdness with which they work the system to benefit their own class.

 

[alyxen]

I don't see that happening in the US. On some issues, yes, but on the whole I see the two large parties moving farther and farther apart. Our entire country, IMO, is becoming unbelievably polarized.

I agree (of course ) and think that one of the reasons for this change, or at least this concept of change, is for the parties to pit their members against the other.

The parties tend to try to push their opponents farther from the middle to make them look 'bad', while at the same time pushing themselves farther from the middle to try to separate themselves as much as possible.

At this rate I think there might be a chance for some moderate independents to start sneaking into some positions of power as the population starts to see how far off the mark some party politicians have become.

I will continue to vote Democratic for the most part, but mainly due to my desire to keep a Repulican from making too much change. If I thought I could believe what a politician says in an election year, I would vote for someone who seemed to want to take the needs of the people into consideration above the needs, or wants, of the party.

 

[oggbashan]

oggbashan:
OK, this is my opportunity to become a bit more educated. I understand that one of the 'dirty little secrets' about the British system is something called 'rotten districts.' Could you please explain? TIA.

The 'rotten boroughs' were a feature of elections before the various electoral reform acts in the 19th Century. Dickens wrote a fictional account of an election in a 'rotten borough' which was used by the Soviet Union as propaganda in schools for most of the 20th Century. Even in Dickens time the story was out of date and the changes had been made before the American Civil War.

The 'rotten boroughs' were towns that had shrunk because of population change or natural disaster but still elected Members of Parliament. Dunwich was the usual example. Most of the town had been eroded by the sea and the electors were those who had valuable property in what was left of the town. Those few people had more representation than Birmingham or Manchester.

That can't happen now. Electoral boundaries are constantly reviewed so that each Member of Parliament has a roughly similar population within the electoral constituency.

The House of Lords used to be the hereditary Peers and the senior judges and Church of England leaders. During the 20th Century many Life Peers (not hereditary) have been appointed for their expertise and the House of Lords is probably better qualified to run the country than the House of Commons. If current reforms are carried out the hereditary element will be reduced to a small number of 'experts'. Many of the current House of Lords are 'Cross-Benchers' with no allegiance to any political party i.e. independents. They have no obligations to any party or group and even those who are party appointees can (and do) vote against their own party's legislation if they consider it flawed.

The House of Lords has limited revising and delaying powers that it uses to modify Government legislation or force a rethink.

The ultimate power is the Queen's. She can refuse to sign legislation (in practice she says - in Norman French - 'I want to think about this') but she has never done it. She might have threatened to do it and discussed her doubts with the Prime Minister. As far as I know the only monarch in the last 200 years to use the power was Queen Victoria who refused to make female homosexuality a crime because she said that she didn't believe it was possible. I, and this is only my opinion, think that Queen Victoria was more intelligent than she is given credit for and she just didn't want women to be criminalised over something she thought wasn't sinful. She wasn't contradicted because the then Prime Minister would have had to explain 'The Facts of Life' to the Queen and he was too embarrassed (or tactful) to do that.

The UK system isn't perfect. No political system is. I believe that the US deserves a better system than it has and US citizens should try to change the system so that it isn't as flawed as it seems it now is.

One last thing - Democracy is the only political system that allows a regime change without bloodshed. If that was all that is going for it, that is enough.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

I’ve been reading a lot of fiction set in England around the time of the American revolution, and one of the things we never hear much about over in the USA are the anti-democratic, pro-monarchy arguments that were current at that time. Not everyone was dead set against British rule. The British system had its staunch defenders.

The monarchists generally characterized democracy as little better than anarchy and saw it as mob rule. In their view, of course, not all people were fit to rule, and the aristocracy were considered the political experts. It was thought that government should be left in the hands of the experts. The mob could be manipulated by anyone with money (or whiskey, which was more acceptable in those days) to serve out. It was largely felt that elections would quite simply be bought by the wealthiest candidates and that politicians would always choose to do what was more popular rather than what really had to be done.

Given the way American politics has gone, and the fact that those people who even bother to vote more often vote on the candidate’s personality or hair cut than his policies, you have to wonder if maybe there wasn’t something to their arguments. Democracy has been said to be the political system in which people get the kind of government they deserve, and that seems to be true.

---dr.M.

The arguments were also in use in the UK at the time of the American Revolution. 'The King's Party' was essentially anti-democratic. The UK had a Constitutional Monarchy at the time and democratic elections, however flawed, to the House of Commons. One of the reasons for the Revolution was the UK's refusal to extend the UK's democracy to the American Colonies. Some politicians here suggested that the Colonies should elect Members of Parliament to Westminster and participate as if the Colonies were part of the UK mainland.

The Revolution was not a democracy against a monarchy: it was a democracy against another democracy but the UK democracy was too influenced by the King and his friends who were opposed to any delegation of powers to the Colonies as a loss of the 'King's' sovereignty. The King and his friends were anti-democratic not just for the American Colonies but for the UK. In the end they lost both the American Colonies and the argument in the UK as well.

The influences of the French Revolution frightened and eventually made irrelevant 'The King's Party'. One of the main reasons for the failure of French (and American) revolutionary issues to take root in the UK was because the UK had already had two revolutions - Cromwell and the English Civil War and the bloodless revolution of 1688 which made the King a constitutional monarch. The English 'peasant' was never the virtual slave that the French peasant was before 1789 and the use of the longbow had given the peasantry respect from their rulers from the time of Agincourt.

King George III and his advisers and 'friends' wanted to turn the clock back in the UK to before 1688. They didn't want the American Colonies to get the democratic powers that the UK had in the 18th Century as part of a larger plan to move all the King's possessions back to 17th Century Monarchical rule.

Many Americans writing at the time of the Revolution and since have underestimated the support in the UK (including in Parliament) for democratic change for the American Colonies. It might have been possible to give true democracy to the Colonies without the Revolution - but for the bull-headed opposition by 'The King's Party' to any concessions at home or across the Atlantic.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

Whatever the flaws in the system - please use your vote whenever you can. Apathy damages the validity of any government and is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure that we can still vote.

Og

 

[minsue]

Re: You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

Whatever the flaws in the system - please use your vote whenever you can. Apathy damages the validity of any government and is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure that we can still vote.

Og

Well said, Og. (as usual )

 

[rgraham666]

Re: You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

Whatever the flaws in the system - please use your vote whenever you can. Apathy damages the validity of any government and is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure that we can still vote.

Og

I do agree, ogg.

And apathy and polarization are not limited to the US. Here in Canada, our system is rapidly becoming East vs. West. The 'Liberals' are the party of the East of Canada, from Ontario to the Atlantic. And the 'Conservatives' are the party from Manitoba to the Pacific.

For some reason, something to do with the Great Depression I recall, people in the West often hate those in the East. And as human beings are wont to do, many Easterners are starting to hate the Westerners right back.

Sometimes it seems the only thing that holds Canada together is that everybody hates the city I live in, Toronto.

And why that is I have no idea.

 

[shereads]

Re: You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

Whatever the flaws in the system - please use your vote whenever you can. Apathy damages the validity of any government and is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure that we can still vote.

Og

Og, I'm not giving up, but I know it's a lost cause.

Dr. M, you're wrong about one thing. We get the government other people deserve. The Bush/Cheney years have destroyed my faith in democracy.

Without a lazy, willfully ignorant electorate, these people could not gain and hold power. No matter how much money is involved, it can't stop the flow of information altogether. (Not yet, anyway; give them a few more years.)

The current administration holds the all-time record for the number of unfavorable books by insiders, published while the president remains in office.

The fact that enough smart, previously repsected individuals have felt compelled to tell the world what they witnessed inside the Bush/Cheney administration ought to mean something, but I don't know a single Bush Republican who has read or plans to read any of these books.

Ambassador Wilson, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, writing from entirely different perspectives and backgrounds, all paint the same, frightening portrait of power twisted to benefit an elite; of centrists who were brought on board for appearances' sake, then ignored, then targeted for the destruction of their reputations and their families when they insisted on speaking the truth.

Was their effort worth it? Not if the only people who read them are the ones who already suspected what GWB was about all along.

Ignorance is bliss. It's what this administration is counting on, and it's what will give them the extra years they need to finish what they've started: turning America into a worker class who support an aristocracy. The goal of colonizing the third world, as outlined in the Project for the New American Century, is limited only by the number of young men and women willing to give their lives for George W. Bush's vision of an American planet.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: You agree?

Do I take it from the lack of dissent above that the US citizens who are members of the AH agree that their political system needs reform?

I think that's about right. Both the left and the moderate right have been trying desperately to work out some way to get Big Money out of polictics, but it really appears to be hopeless. Every few years we get new reforms about the use of money in political campaigns, but when it gets down to adopting something like the British spending caps and short elections, things fall apart and it's back to business as usual.

---dr.M.

 

[R. Richard]

Og:
Thanks for the education about 'rotten boroughs.'
R. Richard

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I, for one, actually believe in the system.

Its isn't perfect, but it does offer up a great deal more freedoms... my choice is free, my choice does matter. As such, I am encouraged--especially by the Bush/Gore election--in my belief that the system works.

We managed to test the outer boundaries of our electoral system and there was no great riot or revolution. I call that progress. Ultimately, we accepted our own laws, and hunkered in for our free choice the next time around.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I am encouraged--especially by the Bush/Gore election--in my belief that the system work...

You are talking about the system by which the political party that gets to load the Supreme Court can skew the country in their preferred direction for several decades, with precious little recourse for the population.

Right?