 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Dino,
I'm from Connecticut, by any definition a small state, and I want the electoral college gone. To say your vote would count less than Boris' is silly. You know damn well that isn't true. You are 1 person, and you get 1 vote. Boris is 1 person and he gets 1 vote. It just may happen that a few million other New Yorkers will vote the same way, and MS doesn't have the numbers to offset that. Too bad. The 2-senators per state system is plenty of redress for the smaller states, including mine.
Let's look at it from a different angle:
When I went to vote in the last election, I knew for sure that Gore was going to win CT comfortably. This was a foregone conclusion. In that situation, the electoral college essentially takes away any reason for my vote, because my vote has no meaning outside of CT. Yet, if there was no electoral college, and the election was very close (oh, say... 200k votes nationally), my vote suddenly means something. The national vote was closer than the CT vote.
I ended up casting a "strategic" vote for Nader, hoping to boost a 3rd party (any third party, excepting nazis or communists). I'm so fed up with both major parties.
Ozzy,
Trolls tend to get a discussion (if you can call it that) going, true enough. But that doesn't mean trolls are good.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
I'm quite interested to know what changes are being made for the next election to prevent another highly embarassing disaster like this one? |
Probably none. Its the american way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I too have wonder why more countries have not adopted the U.S. model. It was well thought out by very well educated men trying to perfect government. They obviously used the Roman Empire/Republic as its basic structure, but corrected some its obvious flaws. The glue that holds the whole structure together, though, is the Supreme Court. Though co-equal in theory, it is really the most powerful institution in the U.S. because it "interprets" the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Ned |
Dear Ned,
I have no problem with someone defending the idea that the USA is a democracy.
But suggesting that the Roman Republic did in any way resemble a democratic structure, does raise the suspicion that your knowledge about the Roman polity is inadequate.
Two questions:
Which public body was dominant in the Roman Republic?
How was it decided who would be member of this public body?
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Havent they thought of using computer touch-screens? Get into the 21st century already!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
New Zealand is more democratic than the US because we have proportional representation. Whether thats a good thing or not is up for debate..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Ned,
I have no problem with someone defending the idea that the USA is a democracy.
But suggesting that the Roman Republic did in any way resemble a democratic structure, does raise the suspicion that your knowledge about the Roman polity is inadequate.
Two questions:
Which public body was dominant in the Roman Republic?
How was it decided who would be member of this public body?
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze |
The Roman Republic had numbers of institutions that checked one another. The Senate was composed of ex-magistrates. Their position was for life. The Senate advised on matters of foreign policy and finance. It nominated the magistrates, including consuls, for election by two other bodies.
The magistrates were the executive and judicial branches. They had different functions. The consuls commanded the armies and were the highest judges. Praetors were the other elected judges. Quaestors were the treasury. Their were other magistrates such as Censors and Aediles.
The Comita Centurita elected the higher magistrates, declared war and approved legislation. This was a representative body elected from the military, which in the Republic, was limited to landowners.
The Comita Tributa elected the lower magistrates and approved legislation. The body was composed of elected representative of the people voting as by regional district (tribes).
The plebans elected a number of tribunes who, upon unanimous vote, could veto any act by any other body. They could call for the election of a concillium plebis. The acts of this body, plebiscites, were binding initially only on the plebans, but later became binding on the whole state.
Augustus, by being continuously elected consul and by retaining command of the legions, became commander in chief. The Senate confirmed on him the tribunician power. This really meant that he had to approve all legislation passed by the Senate and the People of Rome (i.e., the concillium plebis, etc.). In later years, of course, the Emperor increasing ruled by edict.
The U.S. president is modeled on the Roman Emperor, but given a set term and elected.
The U.S. Senate is modeled the Roman Senate. It approves the magistrates appointed by the president and also approves treaties. As well its consent is also necessary to approve legislation.
The House of Representative is based on the Comita Tributa, or representatives of the people elected by district.
The U.S. appointed judiciary, for life, is a modern development. Their power to overturn, i.e. declare unconstitutional, the acts of the other two branches of government is somewhat akin to the veto power of the Roman Tribunes.
What is distinctly different from the Roman Republic is the election of magistrates. In the U.S., the president with the advice and consent of the senate appoints them. Thus the practice is more like that of the Roman Empire, which saw appointed Imperial magistrates become the norm.
Does this answer your question?
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
While New Zealand uses some weird form of proportional representation called MMP I'm not quite getting the point of, proportional representation doesn't necessarily mean voting only for the party. Finland, and many other countries, use a system where you vote for the candidate, votes of all candidates of each party has are counted together, and who gets elected is determined based on amount of votes party gets and who got most votes inside of party. |
Very similar to NZ. We have two votes, one for a person, and one for a party. Hear that Ozzy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Well that idiot wasn't even clever enough to cheat as much as Bush did to win.
Seriously, having a politically appointed court getting involved with the election is ludicrous and having an electoral system where people can't work out how to vote properly like that is just crazy.
I'm quite interested to know what changes are being made for the next election to prevent another highly embarassing disaster like this one? |
Mike, let me explain, briefly, what happened. The election was close. Bush won the initial machine count and a recount. Gore asked for manual recounts in selected highly democratic counties. When the issue became "intent of the voter" based on hanging chads, Gore asked for a "totality of the circumstances test." Bush wanted a uniform standard and complained about the limitation of the manual recount to only certain counties. (The accusation was that without standards, the commissioners were actually voting. This was an obvious problem if the commissioner was located in a highly Democrat county.) The Supreme Court of Florida eventually order a state-wide recount, but left the issue of a chad test open. On remand, the lower court adopted Gore's test.
The Supreme Court endorsed the Florida Supreme Court's statewide recount, but required a uniform standard. The only reason it called a halt to the recount was because of the literal impossibility of getting the statewide recount done by a federally imposed deadline. Also the Supreme Court wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis that was impending with the Florida legislature primed to appoint its own slate of electors.
There was no cheating going on. Legal positions were advanced by both sides in court. Gore eventually lost his right of recount because he did not request a statewide manual recount with uniform standards from the beginning.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
Victor Galis, et al., I think Ozzy's initial post said it all. Majority rule, a pure democracy, is a tryanny. His initial post is all about how a constitutional republic with clear separation of power is better.
This thread seems to have denerated into an ASSUMPTION that the only thing that matters is one man, one vote, majority rules. Comparision to the U.S. are being made on that basis while ignoring the real issue: protection of minority rights from temporary or small majorities.
This is best done by giving every different interests groups an effective veto as was done in the Roman Republic. In the U.S., the president has a veto, so does the Supreme Court, and so does each member of the Senate through filibuster.
As well, no constitutional amendment may pass without 3/4 of the states approving.
This system works, and works a lot better than one party dictatorships such as we seen in most communist countries.
The more democratic is the better is a falsehood.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
"Since it is proportional you don't vote for individuals, you vote for parties. Thus you loose a great deal of diversity."
-So having more than two choices is a lack of diversity?
"People blame us for havng only parties (which is no doubt blameworthy) but there is more diversity within each party than in any party in any country with a proportional parlimentary system (most of them)."
-Which means you vote for a lot of stuff you don't like just to get the stuff you want.
"Thus our system is more democratic because is represents the people better."
-What about the people who voted for the other guy? If 51% vote Republican and 49% vote Democrat, that's a lot of people that are very poorly represented.
"How this works is you pick your first, second, third choices for each position. So lets say we go back to 2000, there are many Gore voters who would have voted for Nader if they thought he had a chance to win, well with IRV they could put Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice. If after the first round Nader is in last place then that vote for Nader would automatically be transfered to that person's second choice, Gore.
This would make it 'safer' for people to vote their conscious so they don't have to pick the lesser of two evils."
-I agree with this
"Victor Galis, et al., I think Ozzy's initial post said it all. Majority rule, a pure democracy, is a tryanny. His initial post is all about how a constitutional republic with clear separation of power is better."
-The thread title says clearly, "The USAis the only Democractic Country in the World. Discuss." I am discussing the fact that I don't believe this to be the case. I am not trying to threadjack the thread by starting a discussion about the merits of democracy.
"As well, no constitutional amendment may pass without 3/4 of the states approving."
-Which is just downright stupid. States should be nothing more than administrative units.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2002 11:42
|