Current/Recent World Conflicts thread.

[DarthTofu]

Keep in mind that the Democrats have 'control' of the Senate with two independants who typically vote Democratics, IF they win it. The rule with regards to recounts is that the first one is automatic if the winner has a majority by one half of a percent or less, in the case of Virginia about 11,000 votes I think (That might have been the figure for Main- I know little with regards to population densities)

 

Any recounts after that will be blamed upon the party who wishes to say, "No, we really won, scandal time!" and one half (I think) of the funding for the recount will come out of the pocket of whoever demands a recount.

 

Hee- this thread is so much more fun now that I'm paying attention in Government class...

[SOCL]

Keep in mind that the Democrats have 'control' of the Senate with two independants who typically vote Democratics, IF they win it. The rule with regards to recounts is that the first one is automatic if the winner has a majority by one half of a percent or less, in the case of Virginia about 11,000 votes I think (That might have been the figure for Main- I know little with regards to population densities)

I don't quite know what it means to vote "Democratics". Bernie Sanders, one of the independents, is a socialist who has never voted with Republicans and will continue voting with Democrats because they are the closest to the left. In any event, he's not a Senator, but a Congressman.

 

As for Lieberman, he will likely be as much a thorn in Democrats' sides as McCain is to Republicans. I don't think anyone on either side is particularly worried about him.

 

Only one independent in the Senate--Lieberman.

[Darth_Rob]

BLAST HIS HIDE TO HADES!!!!!!!!

[SOCL]

BLAST HIS HIDE TO HADES!!!!!!!!

Who? Rumsfeld, Bush, Lieberman, or McCain? Quite a few names have been mentioned...

 

 

 

On a related note, Senator George Allen just conceded to James Webb in Virginia, which means that the U.S. Senate is now controlled by a majority, albeit small, of Democrats, 50 to 49. Had it been 50-50, the Senate still would have been in favour of the Republicans because, assuming votes went with political affiliation, the Vice President, a Republican, would cast a single tie-breaking vote. In this situation, the Democrats have a small majority in the Senate and, again assuming everyone votes according to party affiliation, the Vice President will not any vote at all. Well, at least the elections are over and we won't have a repeat of that God-awful time following the 2000 Presidential elections and the infamous Florida recount. Now Americans have some peace...

 

 

...for a few months before the 2008 Presidential election nonsense starts up.

[Eagle]

Aren´t there any other parties in the states? I can remember that there were the greens as well. It may be more interesting for voters if they haven´t just to choose between pestilence and cholera. US-Journalists who live in europe often tell that they would prefer that people in the states would vote for smaller parties.

[Evaders99]

Sure there are tons of indepedent parties. But they make up a small enough percentage not to be relevant in most elections. I vote Libertarian when I can, though people like say you are "throwing away" your vote because you didn't vote for a Republican or Democrat

[DarthTofu]

What most people don't realize is that third party candidates can't be elected. At least not with the current Electoral College system (Which is, by the way, a rather stupid and unnecesarry one IMO) I'd explain more, but I honestly don't fully grasp how it works, much less why it is still in use when it became outdated a good half century to a full century ago.

[SOCL]

Actually they could be elected Tofu; that they can't is a misconception. I think it's more along the lines of "they likely won't". In any event the college is set up for a two party system, so 1 and 2 are variables, not specifically Democrat or Republican. In any event, I agree that a third or fourth or so forth parties would likely be better, with coalitions of parties working together--it would moderate politics in this country considerably and keep away the sort of polarization that has plagued politics this last decade or so.

 

I agree with Evaders in voting Libertarian, and more especially in people saying that voting for them (or any "third party", for that matter) is "throwing away your vote." People say the same thing about the Green Party concerning Democratic votes. Interesting, though, because I was watching the numbers this election and, it seemed to me, the number of people voting for independents in general seems to be on the rise, with the election of Lieberman as a pseudo-Demcrat and reelection of Bernie Sanders as a pseudo-Democrat (really a declared Socialist) as some of the best examples of rising third parties. Studying politics, it seems to me that eventually the USA will become like most of the rest of the world, with especial interest in the United Kingdom and Germany, namely that "third parties" will rise to near, if not totally equal status as the current Republican-Democratic oligarchy. Perhaps, sometime soon, enough third parties will come to prominence that we'll have coalition of parties (as I stated before).

 

One can always dream, no?

 

Also of interest is the fact that the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives will, for at least the next two years, be a very important position within the government, more so than it has been quite some time. Perhaps what we're seeing is the eventual transformation of the Speaker into a sort of Prime Minister... It's an idea I heard around campus.

[DarthTofu]

According to my teacher the electoral college members are given a 'slate' that is either pure Democrat or pure Republican depending upon how the State voted... As I said, I really didn't grasp the concept quite as well as I could have... It's annoying and complicated.

[SOCL]

According to my teacher the electoral college members are given a 'slate' that is either pure Democrat or pure Republican depending upon how the State voted... As I said, I really didn't grasp the concept quite as well as I could have... It's annoying and complicated.

Roger, but that's how system works now. How do you think it worked when there was Whig and Democrat? She's describing it the way it works, but using today's parties, not variables.

 

Forget it.

[DarthTofu]

The original system was designed with no regards to political parties as they did not exist at the time. I was saying what I did in reply to what Evaders had said regarding how he currently votes. While I am all for Nader, and I recognize that some people vote for him strictly for the purpous of making a statement, and to get out there and vote, but it still doesn't change the fact that Nader is, unfortunately, physically incapable of winning unless he adopts one of the two major parties as his own.

 

... I voted for him two years ago in a moch election sponcered by Channel One.

 

But anyway, let's get on to a new topic about the world- the electoral college is litterally getting old...

[Evaders99]

Nader.. Green Party... arg. I hope some people have actually read their platform. I would consider it rather extreme.

 

The electoral college is what makes this country a Democratic Republic rather than a pure Democracy. There is a purpose on what our founders designed - rules to protect the minority against the majority rule. I don't see the system ever changing as the requirements to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution are rather high.

[Darth_Rob]

The electoral college is a selection of people that each state assembly selects to represent in the elections. The number of people varies, but is equal to the state's members of congress (house and senate). So if a state has 8 reps and the 2 senators, then they have 10 electoral college people. The electoral college is "supposed" to vote the way the majority of the people vote. And like Mad said, that makes the US more of a republic than a democracy. The only reason the electoral college was put in was because the founding fathers did not initially trust the people, and didn't want them to elect a "demi-god", so the college is there incase some nutjob with a heck of a lot of charisma wins the people over...then the college can put a stop to that.

[Eagle]

Well than it is time to leave that ancient procedure. It´s the twenty-first century now and not the eighteenth! Things may change a lot after that.

[DarthTex]

The electoral college has one important thing: equality for the states. Without it, and only using a "popular vote" system, presidential candidates would only campaign in the top ten populus states (I don't know what states populations are, but I'm just saying the top ten as an example). Then the opinions of the other 40 states are worth diddly-squat. At least with the electoral college some of the smaller states get a visit or two (albiet brief) from presidential candidates. Because with the latest US presidential elections, just about every vote counts!

 

Having a third political party would be nice, but more than that creates chaos. Other countries with multitudes of parties have to form coalitions to run the gov't. When one faction gets pissed because they got the short end of the stick, they call for a "no confidence" vote. Then they withdraw their support, and new coalitions have to be formed. Nothing ever gets done because everybody is worried about staying "in power". That part works for every gov't official

[Evaders99]

Things change like what... we want majority rule in this country??

[Jahled]

Having a third political party would be nice, but more than that creates chaos. Other countries with multitudes of parties have to form coalitions to run the gov't. When one faction gets pissed because they got the short end of the stick, they call for a "no confidence" vote. Then they withdraw their support, and new coalitions have to be formed. Nothing ever gets done because everybody is worried about staying "in power". That part works for every gov't official

 

Well we over here have a third political party, called the Liberal Party, that the current government Labour replaced in the early years of the last century who control a few councils around the country, but don't have much political clout on account of Labour's ruling majority in the House of Commons. But if there was a hung Parliament they would be the kingmakers, despite the fact the Labour party has replaced them in the centre...

[DarthTofu]

The electoral college has one important thing: equality for the states. Without it, and only using a "popular vote" system, presidential candidates would only campaign in the top ten populus states (I don't know what states populations are, but I'm just saying the top ten as an example). Then the opinions of the other 40 states are worth diddly-squat. At least with the electoral college some of the smaller states get a visit or two (albiet brief) from presidential candidates. Because with the latest US presidential elections, just about every vote counts!

 

Erm, I'm not sure what you're talking about, Tex. That's the current way things run now. All but two of our States (I forget which two) operate on a 'winner-take-all' system. Thus, in the event that one candidate in a State gets 55.1 percent of the vote and the other 49.9, the guy with 55.1 wins every vote in that State. If that is, say, Florida, it can make or break an election as we saw in 2000. A couple of thousand votes gave Bush all 25 of Florida's electoral votes, letting him leap ahead of Gore, who won the popular vote.

 

The electoral college has a number of arguments in place against it, such as the little-known fact that in the event of a tie the vote is turned over to the U.S. House of Representatives. Each State gets only one vote, and if the representatives from one State can not come to a unanimus conclusion on who to vote for, they will have no vote.

 

While this does not happen often (I don't think it ever has, truth be told) it is still a risk.

 

@Rob:You are WRONG, sir! The electoral college was not originally designed to keep crazies from being elected by popular opinion. It was originally created because the Framers felt that the country was too big for news to travel far enough fast enough for the people to make informed choices with regards to how they voted. Thus, the best and brightest were to be elected by the States to come and cast their votes for the President.

 

Something of a fiasco occured when the system originally called for he who recieved the most votes to become President, and he who recieved the second most to become Vice President. The Framers did not expect parties to form, thus we had a President and a Vice President of opposing parties who agreed upon nothing in the office.

 

It escelated further when there was a unanimus vote the candidates from the same party, one of whom intended to be President, the other Vice President. Due to the tie there was an ammendment made to the Constitution stating that the electoral college would now speciffy who they wanted to vote for as the President and who they wanted to vote for as Vice President.

 

Not that the Vice Presidency was an important job at this time, however. His only official duties according to the Constitution were (and still are) to act as the President of the Senate and to determine Presidential Dissability along with the Cabinet. Other than that he sits at his desk and stares up at a rather twinkly chandelier that has been in the office ever since it distracted Roosevelt (I think) and he stated, "Move that damned thing into the Vice President's office! It will keep him awake at least!"

 

[/"looky-at-me-I'm-taking-government-this-year" rant]

[Evaders99]

Are voters these days informed enough to vote for their president?

I think it is more media spin than anything else. Mm look at this last election, attack ads and everything. Wait to 2008.. it will be a mess

[SOCL]

NPR/BBC America predict that the current trend in media-based politics will lead to more and more attack-ad style political battles like the ones we saw recently. That the amount of money spent on campaigns will eventually match that which is used in the two years between elections. It's ridiculous, and that is why I am in favor of federal-based campaign funds...and nothing else. This doesn't mean I want more taxes, on the contrary, I say campaign funds should come from tax dollars because of the stigma it carries and, thus, very few tax dollars will actually be used to fund campaigns.

 

I am, personally, opposed to the electoral college, but I can see the view Tex has about states not having equal say. Then again, that all depends on your view concerning state rights, an stance traditionally held by Republicans and conservatives in general (and I don't mean the current strain of conservatives in the government, as they, in my opinion, do not represent true conservative ideas). In any event, I do not see a problem with taking out the electoral college. In my opinion, the presidential election should be a voter-wide popular election. State representation and equality and such comes in the Congress, hence why the Senate has two seats per state and the House is divided by population. I say, make the presidential election direct-democracy, but then again, in a country the size of the USA, that's a little more difficult to do that traditional European-sized nations.

 

As for the coaltions and nothing getting done, I beg to differ, Tex. As Jahled stated and as my friends in Germany and many other Parliament-run nations will atest to, a functioning government does it exist, it is merely different from our own. I, personally, do not believe our current government gets much of anything accomplished in the way of truly helping the common person, but rather tries too much to establish federal policy and such. What I have studied of American history seems to point to the USA's federal government becoming more and more elitest with officials becoming more and more seperated from the common folk. But maybe that's just me.

[DarthTofu]

I don't see why we have to have the electors. We've had nine 'faithless electors' over the years, I believe (IE people who do not vote as they were supposed to) and some of 'em influenced the election. I'm in favor of this simple system:

1) A Constitutional Amendment requires the Electors to vote as their State voted.

2) The State's electoral votes are divided based on percentage of votes. We can get this done in the same manner the Federal Government raised the drinking age to 21. (IE Bribe the States)

 

Of course Constitutional ammendments almost never get through, and this one would probably not be seen as an important one due to the scarcity of faithless electors... Heh- every time I think of that word I remember what answer "A" on my government test was for what a faithless elector is- An Atheist.

 

... Almost marked that as the answer, too, just for the sake of arguing a valid point against the teacher...

 

Edit: Be prepared for President Nader...

[Jahled]

Iraq.

 

I opposed it before we invaded because I couldn't see the connection between terrorism and Saddam's regime, especially with neoconservative hawks like Bush and Channey and those precious contracts for the victors with like oil.

 

Then I supported the occupation following the complete mess we made of the invasion, such as the complete dissolution of civil, legal, and military administration, along the lines of some sort of 'we now owe it to the Iraqi people to help them build their democracy and nation,' type of argument; given how much we trashed their country as a consequence of the invasion. Comments made by various Muslim clerics, such as the one who said it was religiously acceptable to enslave female US/British combatants who are captured, further made me think we owed it to the Iraqi people some chance to have a modern, non-spackoid, nation free from such religious twats.

 

But now i'm having my doubts. The daily death toll in Iraq is simply a slaughter, with sectarian violence completely out of control. We 'liberated' the majority Shiite's from persecution under Saddam's Sunni ruling minority, and as a consequence have created a swathe of religious-lunacy

from Syria through to Iran now aligned in it's warped concepts; which is vile to women, or any concept of freedom of expression of thinking. The Sunni minority seem intent on resisting any concept of democracy for their nation, and continue to provoke the Shiite's in an ever worsening cycle of inter-faith violence. It's chaos. And in the scrum of bullets American and British servicemen are dying. I'm just wondering now what's the bloody point? The region is to entrenched in religious ignorance and stupidity for any concept of democracy, equality, or liberty, to actually flourish; why are we still bothering? If it's about the stability and control of oil then we need to sort out our own societies and not be so reliant on the stuff.

 

This isn't a rant guys! Four more British lads got killed today in Iraq, and it's remembrance Sunday over here, so it just got me thinking. From what I see is an entire region of mentality who's broad religious faith seems to be incompatible with the qualities of life we in the west cherish; freedom, liberty, sexual-equality and democracy; so what's the point in shedding any of our further blood helping the few enlightened souls their to introduce it to their society?

 

My mind isn't completely made up, so i'm curious as to what you guys might think.

 

[DarthTofu]

Bad as things are, and high as the death rate is, I think we still owe it to Iraq to try to see the citizens through this as best we can. If our nations were to pull out the result would be a massive civil war in which even more innocents died.

 

America is responsible for this botched war, and we need to figure out a way to see them through it, though I've no way of knowing what that is... Ultimately this is a sad situation which we don't seem capable of finding a winning option in...

[Darth_Rob]

What we need is Excalibur, the great blade of yore! That would make everything right.

[Jahled]

What we need is Excalibur, the great blade of yore! That would make everything right.

 

You know Rob, the more I am exposed to your wisdom, the more I just want a long holiday in the south-Pacific