How can we give them democracy if they insist on voting?

[realguyusa]

I do believe in Santa and the Easterbunny and stubborly refuse to let anyone sway me from that opinion But I agree with you on honest politicians.

Honestly I don't know exactly what they tried to impeach Clinton for. I was very anti-Clinton, but I didn't ecpect them to succeeed. I know Clinton comited perjury and I think that should have had some repercussion, but apparently it didn't. My annnotation about high crimes and misdermeanors is jut that, an annotation of what the phrase origianlly stood for, I don't even pretend it's defensible today as what it is construed to mean or in the way self serving people try to define it.

Noone is saying that podunk should have as big a say on who is president as NYC. I didn't advocate that. But by direct democracy Podunk has no say and I don't advocate that either. I am well aware that most of those 8 million aren't redgistered voters or of voting age or simply don't vote. The same could be said of the states I named, more's the pity.

My whole point about large cities isn't that they are trying to take over, it's just that in a direct vote they would be the only group that mattered. Why even campaign in Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, or any other under populalted state when I can spend my war chest on adverts in the only area's I need to carry to win. The current format makes a candidate pay attention to and attempt to gain the support of the broadest crossection of views. He needs to carry the majority in several different states and he can't do so by simply pandering to one group.

While direct democracy would better represent the will of the majority, it would do so at the cost of representing the widest range of views. In efffect it would render megligible the legitimate concerns of many citizens and remove them from the process. In efect you are saying, if you live in North Dakota you can vote, but if you aren't voting for the candidate who is campaigning strictly to the urban populace your vote means nothing.

Basically the 2000 people in Podunk shouldn't have the same impact as the 8 million in NY, but they should feel that they have the same opportunity to have their vote determine who ispresident. After florida every voter now has to believe that in a close race, his or her state could turn the tide one way or another. I don't see that as bad.

-Colly

I hope you don't mind if I weigh in with an opinion. I agree with Colly on this, and would like to offer a different slant that you may wish to consider.

Senator Byrd (D-WV) took to the floor of the Senate recently to decry the constitutional ineptness of the House and Senate pertaining to their constititional duties. He was specifically speaking about the Omnibus spending bill. With pocket constitition in trembling hands, he chastised the body for partisan lock step voting with the executive branch. He rightly stated that constitutionally, the Congress controls the purse strings and is not required to quell debate on any issue, just because the President wants it. He referenced a call from Clinton, Johnson, Nixon, Truman (who he didn't like due to his vulgar language in public) and others where he refused to abdicate his constitutional duties and would not vote for issues along party lines.

The Congress is the constitutional body of the people. The President has limited powers under the constitution. However, it seems that in recent years, Congress has engaged in partisan politics without regard to the constitutional duties they are sworn to protect, from enemies both foreign and domestic. It would seem that we are so divided along party ideology that we have forgotten the constitutional responsibilities of our elected officials, including the President.

 

[shereads]

Where is realguyusa?

Has he been kidnapped by the writer of the previous post? Is there a ransom demand?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Caucus? Carcus? Caucasian? Caucasus? Case sensitive?

 

[Icingsugar]

Flicka, I know exactly what you mean. I always read it as 'carcass' when I'm not paying attention.

 

[CharleyH]

Hm, been reading and watching many posts. Been laughing sometimes, no offence. I'm still a woman of many beliefs, but . . . being a bit of a bitch, just to piss off those who 'think' they are oh so democratic. . . getting back to the first quote:

So now Iraqis are protesting our reasonable offer to appoint a democratic government, which would save them the frustration and expense of electing their own.

Hm. Lets talk CIA, lets talk George Seniors role in the CIA, and then we will get Dubya . . . well, I'd protest Dubya's reasonable efforts coming to my house and appointing himself ruler over my sex life. But would he appoint me, coming to his house, and appointing myself ruler over his daughters 'wild' life?

"According to the Miami Herald, "...sources say that part of the problem is that there is no way to translate the word, 'caucus.'" (I didn't make that up.)

These people don't know what a caucus is, and they want to elect their own leaders? No wonder they're living in caves. I wonder if any of these voter wanna-bes have ever even eaten pancakes - much less ones served by a candidate for public office. "

Well, there is a differance between "cock us" and "caucus" I have to admit.

And quite frankly cock us, is probably translated as 'fuck you' by the the Iraqi people.

READY FOR DEMOCRACY? Now what exactly is democracy? The States don't have it, few countries do. Individuals own it, but we only vote for what's infront of us.

"They're not ready for democracy. "

Well, my sweet, are you ready for the true meaning of democracy? That means freedom, can you handle it? Few can, which is why we have governments.

We are all playing by the rules, and questioning only those things the powers that be, want us to question. Most of us are in fact are puppets, world over. Don't fool yourself.

Charley

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: How can we give them democracy if they insist on voting?

And quite frankly cock us, is probably translated as 'fuck you' by the the Iraqi people.

No, you're thinking of the Iroquois people. They wouldn't let us help them, either. What is it with people?

 

[minsue]

The most liberal age demographic is mine, that of the 18-30 crowd. And we vote in record LOW percentages.

According to a wire report I read months ago, the percentage of votes cast by eligible voters in that age bracket has remained remarkably steady in the past 40 years. (Before you ask, it was a newspaper article months ago. I have nothing to back this up. Sorry.) The depressing fact, according to the report, was that there is now a much larger percentage of our demographic that is not eligible to vote than there was decades ago. The main reason being that once you are convicted of a felony you are no longer eligible to vote.

- Mindy

 

[minsue]

deleted double post

 

[sweetnpetite]

Noone is saying that podunk should have as big a say on who is president as NYC. I didn't advocate that. But by direct democracy Podunk has no say and I don't advocate that either. I am well aware that most of those 8 million aren't redgistered voters or of voting age or simply don't vote. The same could be said of the states I named, more's the pity.

My whole point about large cities isn't that they are trying to take over, it's just that in a direct vote they would be the only group that mattered. Why even campaign in Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, or any other under populalted state when I can spend my war chest on adverts in the only area's I need to carry to win. The current format makes a candidate pay attention to and attempt to gain the support of the broadest crossection of views. He needs to carry the majority in several different states and he can't do so by simply pandering to one group.

While direct democracy would better represent the will of the majority, it would do so at the cost of representing the widest range of views. In efffect it would render megligible the legitimate concerns of many citizens and remove them from the process. In efect you are saying, if you live in North Dakota you can vote, but if you aren't voting for the candidate who is campaigning strictly to the urban populace your vote means nothing.

Basically the 2000 people in Podunk shouldn't have the same impact as the 8 million in NY, but they should feel that they have the same opportunity to have their vote determine who ispresident. After florida every voter now has to believe that in a close race, his or her state could turn the tide one way or another. I don't see that as bad.

-Colly

Ok, Colly. I don't understand this at all. I don't agree with it either. The people in Podunk would each have 1 vote, so there vote most certainly would count. As it stand right now, there are about 5 main states that really matter when campaining for president- so what you are claiming will happen with 1person 1vote is already happening. The states with the most electoral votes are the ones who's interests are going to be most represented during campaining, and the PAC's and so forth with the most money (to support the campain) are the ones who are going to be represented with actual policy. (ie, why politicians don't keep there campaign promises)

IN the end, I don't think that the results will be that much different, the only thing that will change is the way poeple feel about it. But then, I have no faith in the political system. I feel that power exists mostly to perpetuate itself and as long as there is any system of hierarchy in place, there will be those who prosper and those who suffer. Your best bet is to do whatever you can to get on the right side Look at the structure of a perimid- the majority is on the bottom, holding up the very few at the top.

look at the structure of McDonalds, those at the bottom making minimum wage support those at the top making the big bucks- is it cuz they work harder- no. Is it because they have more education- not necessarily. It's because they pay those at the bottom just enough to keep themselves alive and come back tomorow and work for them some more. Just enough hope to keep coming back, not enough to move on or to think they could have something better. Most people live hand to mouth and don't even know that there's any other way.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ok, Colly. I don't understand this at all. I don't agree with it either. The people in Podunk would each have 1 vote, so there vote most certainly would count. As it stand right now, there are about 5 main states that really matter when campaining for president- so what you are claiming will happen with 1person 1vote is already happening. The states with the most electoral votes are the ones who's interests are going to be most represented during campaining, and the PAC's and so forth with the most money (to support the campain) are the ones who are going to be represented with actual policy. (ie, why politicians don't keep there campaign promises)

IN the end, I don't think that the results will be that much different, the only thing that will change is the way poeple feel about it. But then, I have no faith in the political system. I feel that power exists mostly to perpetuate itself and as long as there is any system of hierarchy in place, there will be those who prosper and those who suffer. Your best bet is to do whatever you can to get on the right side Look at the structure of a perimid- the majority is on the bottom, holding up the very few at the top.

look at the structure of McDonalds, those at the bottom making minimum wage support those at the top making the big bucks- is it cuz they work harder- no. Is it because they have more education- not necessarily. It's because they pay those at the bottom just enough to keep themselves alive and come back tomorow and work for them some more. Just enough hope to keep coming back, not enough to move on or to think they could have something better. Most people live hand to mouth and don't even know that there's any other way.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html


This little graphic may help explain my point. In it you will see Al Gore carried two of the three "big states" New York and California. He also carries most of the heavily populated NE and states in the north with large urban centers Like Ill (Chicago) and Mich. (Detroit). He carried only one other interiror state (N.M). He had a popular vote edge of nearly a million votes. If you carry just the population centers you can carry the country in popular votes.

Al only carried a majority in 21 states. He lost by a grand total of 5 electoral votes. A swing of any two states or many single states could have made Al Gore President. Those 2000 people in podunk might have been the boost needed to throw the county to the democrats and that might have been just enough to swing the state and that might have been enough to hand Al the victory. In a real sense those 2000 folks in Podunk could make a difference with their votes. It's because those 2000 people in podunk COULD make the difference that the major candidates listen to them. If you eliminate thier ability to make a difference then you have eliminated their voice. They are now just 2000 votes among millions and they aren't worth listening to or worrying about. Thats my problem with election by direct popular vote.

You aren't depriving them of their vote, but you are depriving them of a voice.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

SnP made an excellent point, though, Colly, about the "fairness flaw" built into the electoral college: "swing" states like Florida and California receive a disproportionate amount of attention not only during the campaigns, but in federal policy. The needs of someone from Rhode Island should not matter less than the wishes of someone in Florida, but under this system they have to.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

SnP made an excellent point, though, Colly, about the "fairness flaw" built into the electoral college: "swing" states like Florida and California receive a disproportionate amount of attention not only during the campaigns, but in federal policy. The needs of someone from Rhode Island should not matter less than the wishes of someone in Florida, but under this system they have to.

Ri has 4 elctoral votes. Just four. Four however could be the deciding factor in an election. Five was the margin the last time. Yes, California and New York and Texas and Florida recieve a disproportionate amount of attention. But if you ignore the legitimate concerns of people across the farm belt, the bible belt and the sunshine belt you can (and in Gore's case) will loose. As a population center they don't matter compared to the industrial and highly urbanized North east and West coast, but they can determine who wins an election if you ignore them.

In a direct popular vote, they don't matter, their thoughts, worries, fears and issues don't matter. Carry the urbanized states with a decent majority and they might as well not vote, they are that insignificant.

People who favor a direct popular vote for president are mostly liberal and while I feel there is a hidden agenda in that, the truth is they can effectively argue that it's more democratic. It does represent the will of the majority. Our system is not however, directly democratic and it was built in the way it is to assure everyone that while the will of the majority was carried out, the rights of the individual were protected.

I favor the current system as it makes candidates appeal to the broadest spectrum of ideas, needs and opinions. You can't just appeal to urbanites, or farmers, or the rural poor, or blacks, or asians or hispanics or southerners or westerners or men or women. You have to appeal across all demographics in at least some significant manner if you want to win. While it isn't as democratic, it's a lot more eglitarian.

I will conceed to you all that direct popular vote is more democratic. I simply refuse to accept that in this case more democratic is more fair.

-Colly

 

[LarzMachine]

These people don't know what a caucus is, and they want to elect their own leaders? No wonder they're living in caves. I wonder if any of these voter wanna-bes have ever even eaten pancakes - much less ones served by a candidate for public office.

They're not ready for democracy.

This could take a while.

The sad part is, Iraq is actually the most up-to-date country in the whole Middle East, and they're MAYBE in the 18th century socially. The others are lucky if they're in the 12th or so. I say distribute enough explosives so they can all blow themseves up -- since that seems to be the most popular way of addressing one's grievances over there.

 

[KarenAM]

Caves? I think we should all remember that both urban civilization and writing were invented in Iraq, about 5000 years ago. My ancestors had barely learned to smash each other over the heads with clubs in those days.

Keep in mind as you type your stories and posts: they started it all.

Yes, even erotica.

 

[Couture]

I will conceed to you all that direct popular vote is more democratic. I simply refuse to accept that in this case more democratic is more fair.

-Colly

I agree with Colly on this one. We've had our voting system for a long time now, and it's worked for the most part. Nothing will ever be 'perfect'.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Now, if you want to fix something, how about starting with those gerrymandered districts for congressional seats or those black folks were not allowed to vote in Florida.

 

[Couture]

Caves? I think we should all remember that both urban civilization and writing were invented in Iraq, about 5000 years ago. My ancestors had barely learned to smash each other over the heads with clubs in those days.

Keep in mind as you type your stories and posts: they started it all.

Yes, even erotica.

Well, it seems that all that practice smashing heads paid off ;-)

 

[LarzMachine]

Caves? I think we should all remember that both urban civilization and writing were invented in Iraq, about 5000 years ago.

Keep in mind as you type your stories and posts: they started it all.

So they started things off several thousand years ago. Big deal. Why should that excuse their present behavior? That's an awful lot like holding modern Russians responsible for Stalin or modern England responsible for the colonial era.

And really, just how "urban" is the Middle East? How many skyscrapers do you see? I live in a small town that's more urban than Baghdad -- and nobody here blows themselves up either.

I wish I knew who said it first, but the current situation in the Middle East is a bunch of cavemen flying airliners they could never invent into buildings they could never build in order to preserve a ridiculous culture that should have died centuries ago.

Incidentally, writing was independently invented in several places, including Babylon, the Indus Valley, and Central America. All those places came up with urbanized societies as well. Iraq is an insult to their Babylonian and Sumerian predecessors. At least their ancestors were moving into the future.

 

[Couture]

So they started things off several thousand years ago. Big deal. Why should that excuse their present behavior? That's an awful lot like holding modern Russians responsible for Stalin or modern England responsible for the colonial era.

And really, just how "urban" is the Middle East? How many skyscrapers do you see? I live in a small town that's more urban than Baghdad -- and nobody here blows themselves up either.

I wish I knew who said it first, but the current situation in the Middle East is a bunch of cavemen flying airliners they could never invent into buildings they could never build in order to preserve a ridiculous culture that should have died centuries ago.

Incidentally, writing was independently invented in several places, including Babylon, the Indus Valley, and Central America. All those places came up with urbanized societies as well. Iraq is an insult to their Babylonian and Sumerian predecessors. At least their ancestors were moving into the future.

Yeah, what he said. And we'll bomb the first sumbitch who says otherwise.

 

[KarenAM]

Originally posted by LarzMachine
That's an awful lot like holding modern Russians responsible for Stalin

I must confess this is the first time I've ever seen Stalin compared to the invention of writing.

And really, just how "urban" is the Middle East?

I think Cairo has a population of about 10,000,000 people. Baghdad has several million. It sounds like your town must be quite the metropolis!

Incidentally, writing was independently invented in several places, including Babylon, the Indus Valley, and Central America.

Don't forget Egypt and China. But the Sumerians were the first.

Bombs away! After all, it worked so well last time!

 

[LarzMachine]

I think Cairo has a population of about 10,000,000 people. Baghdad has several million. It sounds like your town must be quite the metropolis!

Who said anything about population? I'm talking about actual urbanization -- as in buildings more developed than variants on mud huts. And really, Cairo is hardly a shining example of the glories of Middle Eastern urbanization. Sure they have a lot of people, but the vast majority of them live in slums -- or worse, "normal" neighborhoods that would be classified as slums and land a bunch of landlords in prison if they were here in the States.

Don't forget Egypt and China. But the Sumerians were the first.

So what? Are you going to try to claim the Chinese and Mesoamericans stole writing from the Sumerians or Babylonians?

In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?

 

[KarenAM]

The last definition I heard of urbanization was a place where lots of people live. Having been to Cairo, I can tell you that it is like a lot big cities, with slums and wealthy areas, and yes, some skyscrapers. I didn't see any mud huts, though in that part of the world, as in the southwestern United States, mud is a perfectly useful building material. And in Cairo, you could walk through the slums and not get mugged; alas, this is not true of American slums.

Are you going to try to claim the Chinese and Mesoamericans stole writing from the Sumerians or Babylonians?

It's rather hard to "steal" ideas like writing. Some books I've read said that the idea for writing might have spread over time from the Sumerians, at least in the Old World. I figure the New Worlders came up with it on their own.

In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?

I presume you've traveled in the Middle East, of course, since you seem to have such firsthand knowledge of the conditions there. Based on your experience and knowledge, do you think that some of their problems might be because the political boundaries of every Middle Eastern country were drawn by the colonial powers of the 19th and early 20th century? And how do you think we can best help these poor folks join us enlightened Westerners in the modern age?

 

[minsue]

In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?

You keep saying that, but I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by it. Can you explain??

- Mindy

 

[LarzMachine]

The last definition I heard of urbanization was a place where lots of people live. Having been to Cairo, I can tell you that it is like a lot big cities, with slums and wealthy areas, and yes, some skyscrapers. I didn't see any mud huts, though in that part of the world, as in the southwestern United States, mud is a perfectly useful building material. And in Cairo, you could walk through the slums and not get mugged; alas, this is not true of American slums.

Ooh. You've been to a third-world country. Did Cairo even come close to say, Minneapolis in terms of real urbanization and standard of living, or will you claim that just because a bunch of desperately poor people live together in squalor they qualify as having a city?

It's rather hard to "steal" ideas like writing. Some books I've read said that the idea for writing might have spread over time from the Sumerians, at least in the Old World. I figure the New Worlders came up with it on their own.

Yeah, the Chinese stole the concept from the Sumerians, nevermind the fact that the two writing systems are completely different linguistically...

I presume you've traveled in the Middle East, of course, since you seem to have such firsthand knowledge of the conditions there.

Nope, I just know quite a few people who were stationed there. I also watch the news and read actual references, not flaming leftist propaganda.

Based on your experience and knowledge, do you think that some of their problems might be because the political boundaries of every Middle Eastern country were drawn by the colonial powers of the 19th and early 20th century?

If the colonial powers were really to blame and had so much influence, why are they still so far behind the times? One would think they would have advanced to a relatively normal level of societal development after a century of influence by those evil Eurpoeans. Of course, before the Europeans showed up and made them start at least pretending to behave themselves, they were a bunch of desert raiders, so maybe the Europeans DID have an effect.

And how do you think we can best help these poor folks join us enlightened Westerners in the modern age?

Nuclear weapons.

Either that or get biodiesel (you know, turkey guts into fuel) technology going properly and render the entire Middle East irrelevant overnight. Hell, getting the Iraqi oilfields running and selling the oil for $5 a barrel would have much the same effect -- the others would have to slash their prices just to stay in the game, increased demand because of the obscenely low price would deplete the Middle Eastern oil reserves pretty quiclky, and they'd lose their sole industry.

They're still worshipping imaginary gods who urge them to fly airliners into buildings because We evil Americans actually treat women and other religions like human beings. There ain't no cure for that except mass executions. They want to behave like 12th century barbarians, let 'em -- without the piles of imported money and technology that lets them inflict their stupidity on the rest of the world.

I really am sorry you've allowed yourself to buy into the whole "poor, poor savages" propaganda. Your debate skills would be better used serving an argument that actually holds up in the real world.

 

[LarzMachine]

You keep saying that, but I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by it. Can you explain??

- Mindy

The fact that they're still worshipping a glorified tribal chieftain (namely Allah -- or even the Judeo-Christian god) who tells them to treat their wives like slaves, people who don't worship their ridiculous god as targets, and to fly airliners into buildings because some people actually want to live in the present. Does any of that qualify? One of their own leaders sums up their refusal to join the modern world quite well:

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished." [Muslim religious edict, 1993, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia]

It don't get much more clear-cut than that.

 

[KarenAM]

Well it will probably surprise you to hear it, LarzMachine, but you and I actually agree on some things. The best thing we can do both for ourselves and the Middle East is end our nation's addiction to oil, something I've believed since 1973. I've long regarded the Saudi theocracy as a danger to the rest of the world, even before 9-11.

And I've been to several third-world countries, thank you. And Minneapolis, believe it or not. I like them both. I've also been to Communist countries and seen that system fail firsthand. Socialism gives me the creeps.

Yeah, the Chinese stole the concept from the Sumerians, nevermind the fact that the two writing systems are completely different linguistically...

Your scholarly talents seem to know no bounds, so of course you know that all we know for certain is that the Sumerian writing system is older than the Chinese one. I merely said that some books I've read hypothesized that the idea for writing might have spread, over time, across the Old World. I'll leave final conclusions in the hands of experts such as yourself.

Nope, I just know quite a few people who were stationed there. I also watch the news and read actual references, not flaming leftist propaganda.

Again, somethng we have in common. I'm honored to have known as many soldiers as I have, and I'll go to my grave being proud of both them and my country, the USA, which I happen to believe is, whatever faults it may have, the greatest in the history of the world. I get the feeling you agree with me about that too.

Of course, before the Europeans showed up and made them start at least pretending to behave themselves, they were a bunch of desert raiders

Since you mention your use of references, I'd be most interested in your source for this information. The history books I have all say that the Middle East was under the control of the Ottoman Turks until the end of the first world war.

They're still worshipping imaginary gods who urge them to fly airliners into buildings because We evil Americans actually treat women and other religions like human beings.

Some do, sadly. That's why we need to catch Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the rest of the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists and kill them. Interestingly, a lot of Muslims I've spoken to say the same thing. These same Muslims also tell me they find bin Laden particularly offensive because he defames Islam.

I really am sorry you've allowed yourself to buy into the whole "poor, poor savages" propaganda.

I regard the people of the Middle East as being anything but savages (you will recall that my original post was applauding some of their civilized achievements). They're in a hell of a bind, with authoritarian dictatorships on the one side and psychotic Islamists on the other. And yet the overwhelming majority of them, those ones you don't see on the news, still manage to live and laugh and love their kids. It's ultimately going to be up to them to solve their problems. If we could reduce our reliance on their oil I think this would help.

Your debate skills would be better used serving an argument that actually holds up in the real world.

I have debate skills? Thanks!