Oh, whew. I was worried there for a minute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marshdrifter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pauline:
Sure, if you don't want to vote, that's OK. Would you consider voting on my behalf?

---

I think that might be illegal.

---

Which - voting for someone else or voting as suggested by a godless Canadian?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pauline:
Sure, if you don't want to vote, that's OK. Would you consider voting on my behalf?

---

Well, if you want me to vote for Kerry on your behalf, I refer you to the above post on why that would mean absolutely nothing. I can't reasonably vote for G-dub as his record is outstandingly bad. I think I'm just going to *try* to write in David Cobb, but I don't think that the Kansas ballot allows for write ins like that... I hate this country sometimes.

You may be right about any vote against Bush not counting in Kansas, Vec, but if I were in your shoes (and I am really glad I'm not), I still wouldn't want to let the pollsters decide the election.

So, I guess trying to write in David Cobb might be the best option in your particular circumstance. At the least it might register as part of a record number of defaced ballots (=displeasure with the current system/choices), instead of a record low turnout (=apathy).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobW:
a vote for Kerry ups his popular vote, which may not get him the Presidency (the way it didn't for Gore) but will at least say something about the legitimacy of the result

---

This is why I'd vote anyway.

"Now, do you think, after winning, they will be inclined to think the system is broken?"

Maybe not broken, but it is possible to convince elected officials to change the system that got them elected. You have to make them think that the changes will make it even more likely for them (or someone they like) to win next time.

Whether this can be used to make effective and beneficial changes is left as an exercise for the reader (read: I have no idea).

Yes, Nader is more different. (That's probably why he doesn't look set to win this election.) That still doesn't make Kerry and Bush the same now, does it?

Whoever wins ther are going to be problems. Either side is ready to acuse the other of "stealing" the election. At least half the country will be not disappointed, but bitterly angry over a loss. This might be one of those rioting in the streets events.

quote:

---

I'm inclined to think getting him into office would be much easier if the law stating the candidate that wins 50 % or more of the state's vote automatically gets the state (the electoral vote, is it?) could be done away with.

---

Unless I'm totally wrong, it's even worse than that - candidates only need a plurality in any given state to win all of its electors, the exception being Maine which divvies the electors up proportionally by vote (or would, but for the fact they have only three). As I understand it, the idea behind winner-take-all is that it increases the leverage of any given state.

Surely unless there is a direct vote the system is not democratic? Having the college stand in the way just goes to show the founding fathers were just as fearful of the people as all governments are. Government knows best it would seem.

There's never going to be a perfect system. As for democracy just consider the US Senate. Every state gets two Senators to represent them in the Senate. North Dakota or Califonia, it doesn't matter. The Senate is an equal partner in passing any and all legislation.

Every state gets at least one House Representative as well even if the states entire population is less than that of a Congressional District in a big state. The system is set up so that everyone, no matter how small their state, can get some say in the government.

A pure democracy would have to toss the Senate entirely and ignore state boundaries as well. There would be Gerrymandering on a national level.

The result would be a political entity that would be subject to the very weakness that so many claim to fear, a situation where a "Great Man" could seize power by appeal to the masses and never let go again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bravus:
I have no beef at all against religion - I'm a church-attending believer myself. My whole problem is with the legislation of religion, something that should be impossible in the US but is happening, and will happen more if Bush is elected.

---

I feel less alone.
Saw this yesterday:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/jesusbush.jpg
- summed up my feelings, Bush & Co actually are showing no respect for the US constitution or for their selected religion.
Question: is Bush crazier/more dangerous than Reagan? I can't decide given the different conditions.

I still cling to the weird view that democracy is about people, not states and regions. At any rate, in a nation as populous and non-urbanised as the US, I don't think you run much risk of the political process being dominated by a few cities - or isn't the heartland as much a heartland as it's made out to be? After all, you're just choosing one guy - it's not like there's great scope for regional nuance. And how much of "the US" is being served by a system where most states are so safely aligned to one or other party that there's no point for either to campaign there?

It's been a while since I studied the revolutionary period but I'm pretty sure at least some of the contemporary arguments made for the Electoral College were precisely as characterised by mygmus - the engineers of the new republic wanted a filter placed over the direct vote to prevent demagogues winning the Presidency by appealing to the gullible masses. Perhaps I remember wrongly.

If you've got a problem with gerrymandering a) don't let partisan bodies determine electoral boundaries or b) try proportional representation. Systems which are a mix of PR and regional reps might be the go, at least for legislatures. I still see no earthly reason why an elected executive can't be chosen by direct popular vote.

chado or chaado or chaido, LMAO!

quote:

---

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
How did we let things get so far? So far that large portions of us feel we're no longer in control of our own democracy?

---

IMO, people didn't participate with a proper level
of vigilance.

[edit] I think I covered this in my incoherent
rant.

I have to point out that sometimes raising taxes is needed when you've dug yourself into a hole (as the US clearly is - or going to be - when nonpartisan budget data is used). Reagen raised taxes after all when he was Gov. of California.

Since Bush enacted several trillion dollars in tax cuts how much money have you saved?

It seems curious to Canadians (myself included) about how much importance Americans attach to taxes. Sure you have one of the lower tax rates in the world but you also lack basic social services that other developed countries have (healthcare).

And before someone says that healthcare is expensive I'd like to point out that Canadain healthcare funding is less then American medicare and related program funding. And yes, this counts the disparity in the two countries sizes. Of course before I hype Canada to much, I'll also point out that Sweden spends a fair bit less on healthcare (again, disparties in population counted) and provides better service.

Gun control I can understand to an extent. However some gun control laws, like the automatic weapons ban, make sense for all sorts of reasons, and disadvantages the average gun using American not in the least. A semi-automatic handgun to protect your family...OK. A rifle to hunt...OK. A fully automatic assult rifle to do what?...

Although you can still purchase if you're willing to pay. An AK-47 a couple of years ago went for about 10 000 in Washington D.C. and 100-300 dollars in Afganistan.

Regional differences may play less of a role in smaller or more uniform countries. Any Canadian (and people from many other countries) would agree, regional differences make huge voting differences. For example the Western part of Canada went heavily Conservative, Quebec went with the Bloc Quecbois (A separtist party), and the rest predominatly Liberal.
Please note that this doesn't mean that the Liberal Party is liberal, or the Conservative Party conservative in the way Americans view these things.

Without tax rises *and* spending cuts, the country is headed for disaster. You can't keep running trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. Either side is either going to have to do one or the other or both, to a very great extent, or risk basically fucking over the next 3 generations or so.

First of all I never believed that there was a budget surplus to begin with. I believe that the deficit was already there and just unaccounted for until after Bush had been in office. The trillion dollar deficit is a projection for 10 years in the future. It may be no more accurate than the bogus surplus. Raising taxes will seriously impact the economy in a bad way. The Federal Reserve also drastically dropped interest rates. The real answer would be to start cutting Federal Programs. That means no free health care or any of those other things that we've been doing without so far.

Dog Soldier:

Read this link.
A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works on budget and tax policy

quote:

---

Originally posted by M:
It will be really interesting to see how American voters react to the OBL tape. Surfing the internets, most people seem truly stunned.

As WG suggests, it's significant that OBL is so obviously a part of the common media-circus. He's seen Fahrenheit 9-11. He reads the news and watches TV. He replicates the jargon of both Bush and of the mainstream global media. He is not a wild hairy man in the mountains, but a politician, speaking politico-speak.

Conservative columnist Brooks is asking for some emotional response from Kerry - as a sign of moral strength. This seems to me to be at the core of Bush-voting. He is very obviously not doing his job. OBL is alive and kicking. But Bush shows the appropriate _emotional_ response...

---

I imagined Bush having the business end of a coniption fit while watching the movie, and it made me very satisfied. "Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'"

Zing!