They just opened a huge can of worms..

[KvHagedorn]

But why are we only concerned with Palm Beach county? I'll tell you why.. the media orchestrated this circus and wants to focus attention on only this scene. Didn't anyone else notice them saying before any states were called that Florida would be the battleground and decide things? They must have relished digging up this story, because they saw their chance to use FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to create an uproar there and cause this current chain of events. It was in their power to influence this election, and they have done just that.

Don't think for a minute that the media is unbiased. Look at the top guys in the media machine and you will see. Anyone going down the chain of command in the news corporations has to be a little clone of the top guy's bias or he will be out of a job sooner or later. The media is a hotbed of liberal bias, and has been for years. George Bush Sr. was never good at disguising his true feelings about issues, and the media bias was one of his real dislikes. He never got along well with the media and I'm sure they would stop at nothing within their power to wrest the presidency away from his son. The rule of law has become a joke in this country. Look at O.J... look at the Clinton impeachment. It's all about having money and power.. There is no justice. We have become so much like Latin
American banana republics it makes me sick.

[Bixler]

KV:

Sad thing about your comments on media bias is that (I believe) they sincerely do not think that they are being biased.

Lately I've been watching Fox News Channel, and when you look at their analysis (slightly leaning to the right-Yeah, it's Murdoch's gang) and then tune back to CNN and the Major Networks, it is just ASTOUNDING how slanted most coverage is to the left-liberal point of view.

Fox calls their news "fair and balanced" when in fact it has a slight 'lean' to the right. But still when you look at their analysts VS. the networks, there is NO question that they are ALL alone in presenting BOTH parties' side in this mess.

It's really kind of refreshing to see SOME coverage that gives the Republican side a reasonable shake.

I recorded all three networks' Sunday morning shows, compared it to Fox's and the difference was amazing!!

If the left-leaning tendencies of the mainstream media cannot be acknowleged by all parties in this debate, then there IS no debate. All of these problems spring from that source. If we can acknowlege that, then perhaps we can have a rational discussion about what the facts are.

[HedsSpaz]

I heard a rather interesting story on NPR the other day. Two elementary school teachers, completely independent of each other, and completely independent of any governmental orginization, gave the ballot to their fourth grade classes. They were given intructions to vote for either Gore or Bush. They were told to do so by punching a hole next to the candidate of their choice.

Geuss what. Not a single student messed up. So, what we have here is proof that some americans have an IQ less than that of the average 4th grade student, and they are legally allowed to vote.

Disturbing isn't it?

On another note. I want to comment on the electoral college. Many people think that we should do away with it. That would be the worst thing we could possibly do. People in this country, and the rest of the world, suffer from a problem of refusing to think. They hate doing it, it's too much bother to actually have to think about something and work your way through a problem.

One of the ways this plays out, is that people tend to jump at the first 'solution' that makes it self obvious. The trouble is, that solution usually treats the symptom rather than the problem. In this case, the problem is not the electoral college. As someone pointed out, Gore one the popular vote by 200,000 votes, .2%. He didn't even get a majority. He got a plurality. THAT is the problem with our voting system, not the electoral college. The plurality system is doomed to give flawed results now and forever.

Think of it this way, when we vote, the person who wins is the person who the most people vote for. What we would rather have is the person who the most people approve of.

So, imagine a ballot that has all of the candidates on it, and for EACH candidate you vote either
yes (you approve of this person, you think they would do a good job as president)
or
no (you feel that this person would make a bad president)

Now, the electoral college can remain in place, and resume it's job as a safegaurd. And more importantly, we get a much more accurate picture of the REAL opinion of the citizens of the US.

Now, because I know some of you are going to think that this idea is nutty, you can go here and read why it isn't and why it is mathematically sound whereas the plurality system is not.

There is another voting system desribed on this page but I can't do a good job of explaining it, so go read it for yourself.
http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gther...atbestman.html

Food for thought.

Ian

[ahartman]

I heard the blurb about calling Florida early causing people not to vote in the western part of the country.

I can't believe anyone is trying to make that hold water. If you're not going to vote because of earlier results, you lost all rights to complain later. That's no different than choosing not to vote in the first place.

Also, about cutting off voters right at the appointed time... Why?!? If someone is in the polling place when time runs out, let them vote. Why should someone be penalized because they work longer hours or have to vote at a polling place without enough machines or because people in front of them took longer than they should have?

As for the rest of it, I just wish that someone would win and end the whole thing. Whoever ends up winning is going to get zero done anyway.

Let's get a head-start on getting nothing done! Quick, someone send them the Nothing Jar (tm) so they can see what their administration will get done over the next 4 years.

Whoever loses will NOT run again in 2004 - they're done politically, because of the way they're both handling this recount thing.

MAKE IT STOP!!!! THE HORROR!!!

[HollyBerri]

Listen, when I (transplanted from NYC to Holland) am hearing on CNN that this one is ahead by 112 votes, then that one is ahead by 19 votes, it seems obvious that all the votes must be manually counted... including the ones from abroad, for a change.

I think it's ridiculous to elect a President on the basis of a few hundred votes when we're talking about 96 MILLION votes in total-- it's obvious that no one has a clear "mandate from the people". But then again, it's ridiculous to have a choice of only <u>2</u> from among those 96 million in the first place, or not to have an "I hate them both; give me another choice" box on the ballot. But that's the way it was done going into this; no changing it till after this is settled.

So yes, I think they do have to count them manually; I don't think Gore should back down until it's done (that's only fair); and everybody can feel really important and special while the candidates toss court injunctions around and Florida applies for extensions on the deadlines.

Hey, it's exciting, right? Nobody's feeling apathetic now, right? It's a wonderful media circus where every American counts. We haven't felt that in a long time, have we?

But I'm glad I won't be living there for the next four years....

------------------------
Holly

[paulcs]

It is my understanding that the Electoral College exists to place a check on "the will of the people." That was the framers intention. The framers believed that "temporary majorities" were potenitally dangerous and placed a number of checks on the "tyranny of the majority" in the constitution. It is undemocratic by design.

A lot of voting took place between the end of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution. And a lot of these elections resulted in "the rabble" (farmers, I assume) voting down their debts to more affluent Americans. Of course, this couldn't go on.

The framers were more concerned about the rights of the individual than the will of the majority. They spelled out these rights in the first ten ammendments and put into place a system that moved at a snail's pace. They also made it extremely difficult to change.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that all elections for political office must adhere to the principle, "one man, one vote," *unless* something to the contrary is stated in the Contitution. I believe all things to the contrary involve the Senate, which gives each state equal representation, irrespective of size. Since the number of electors is dependant on congressional representation, and representation in the Senate is not a function of population, the concept of "one man, one vote" is severely weakened in close Presidential elections where most of the big states vote one way and most of the small states vote the other.

I think the country has matured quite a bit since 1787. I think the will of the framers is hardwired into us. Just look at how we vote in presidental and congressional elections. The party of the President hasn't been able to maintain a majority in both houses of Congress for more than two years in quite some time. We seem to love gridlock, which tends to make legislation move at a snail's pace, encourages compromise, and most importantly, discourages radical change and the potential for tyranny.

I think we, as a people, can handle the responsibility of directly voting for our President, without the intervention of appointed electors and Congress. The Constitution provides plenty of other checks to keep us in line and prevent us from doing something really, really dumb. I just think we're big boys and girls, and we can handle this responsibility.

We often claim to have the most sophisticated democracy in the world. Sometimes we even lie to ourselves and claim we have the longest running democracy in the world. I think we should practice what we preach, and we do *a lot* of preaching. I think we should put an end to this archaic system, which is undemocratic by design.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 13 November 2000).]

[HedsSpaz]

We often claim to have the most sophisticated democracy in the world. Sometimes we even lie to ourselves and claim we have the longest running democracy in the world. I think we should practice what we preach, and we do *a lot* of preaching. I think we should put an end to this archaic system, which is undemocratic by design.

Personally, I often feel that we have the strongest government in the world, and are the strongest nation in thet world, precisely because we are NOT a democracy. This is a stumbling block that many many people can't seem to get past. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. We have never been a Democracy, and I for one hope we never become a true democracy.

The majority of the people in this country are idiots. They don't stop to think about what a given action might or might not do. If we had a nation wide majority vote on every issue, every law, every ruling of any sort, we would quickly fall into complete and utter anarchy.

Democracy is a wonderful system in a small setting. When you are concerned with 200 some million people though, it doesn't work. Just because a 'majority' of the people support or oppose a given issue, does not mean that something should or should not become law.

This is what the governement is for in theory. We pay them to educate themselves and spend time thinking out all courses of action and evaluate which is best for the ENTIRE country. Not which is best for the most people, or the richest, or the poorest, or whatever demographic, but ALL people. A true democracy simply cannot do that on such a large scale.

Of course, this begs another issue. That of the 'career politician'. Anyone who wants to make a 'career' out of politics should be shot. If you want to spend a few years giving your time to the country and trying to make a difference, thats wonderful. But not before you've held a real job for a while. after 1 or 2 terms, maybe 3, get the hell out and go get a real job again.

IMNSHO

Ian

[Jorden]

Just a little question from a non-American to all Americans:

While we here in little Holland, Europe have been using voting-computers since 5 years now for about every election, be it state, council or local (and some others), which haven't gone wrong ever since introduced, how come the USA is still using paper votes then?
Are the voters considered too stupid to press a button, or what?

Bush [] [] Gore
Whoever [] [] Whoever2

Might be me (as ever ), but a country that's so high on computers in about everything they live for and with, be it navy, military, airforce, space, you name it, I think it strange that you don't have voting computers yet

Oh, and yes, I did see that CNN report on voting through the internet, which is something I didn't mean

Jord.

[paulcs]

Being a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. Republics have chief magistrates or chiefs of state who are not monarchs. The Republic of Rome had a Caesar. The Venetian republic had a Doge. Modern republics, like the United States and France, typically have presidents.

The citizens of France, I believe, vote directly for their President. France is a republic and a democracy. The citizens of the United Kingdom do not vote for their chief of state. They are a constitutional monachy and a democracy. The citizens of the United States vote directly for their legistlators on both the national and state level. Although their are limits to democracy, it does not preclude us from being a democracy.

Certainly, being a republic does not preclude our being a democracy. If that were the case, only monarchies could be considered democracies.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

I agree about the preaching aspect.

[paulcs]

Jorden, methods of voting are controlled by individual states, so your question could have 50 different answers. The last time I voted in New York State, voting was done mechanically, as opposed to electronically or via paper ballot. Voting in California is done with paper ballots.

Government in the US isn't as centralized as it is in most European countries. The federal government dictates some rules, and the states and counties do the rest.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

As for senates, we have the worst, here in Canada, it's a retirement home for aging politicians with no influence whatsoever.

I think it's ok to have a senate representing regional interests so long as they don't have too much power. There are few if any decisions that will please everybody, all the time, and there are some that please few but have to be made anyway.
A government has to have the ability to make hard decisions. If the public has a problem with it because it is not in their paticular short term self interest, they can vote someone else in next time.

Always going with the interests of the majority means the less populous regions get decimated. Representation by population means nothing if your region doesn't have much population, it's becomes representation ONLY if you have population in effect. It's a positive feedback loop. The more populous regions get more populous, (and prosperous) and other regions decline. I think it's the fact that our senate sucks that is responsible for so many regional political parties. Non central regions feel they have no representation at all in comparison to the wealth they generate. Others, like Quebec for instance has a lot of representation, close to 50%, yet they are broke most of the time. Basically, Ontario and the west pay for Quebec and other less well off provinces, yet they don't get representation to match their contributions to the country. I think taxation should be proportional to representation, just for the sake of being fair.

I think at the end of the day, what is important is flexibility, being able to rework systems that are failing the needs of the public.

[paulcs]

Well, I think you hit upon the most pertinent question. How important is the current system vs. a more democratic one. Democracy and and "one man, one vote" are principles. Disproportionate representation of small states in the Senate was done for pragmatic reasons from what I understand: large states wanted proportional representation (the Virginia Plan) and small states wanted equal representation (the New Jersey Plan). The dispute went to committee and we got the Connecticut Compromise, where the House is proportionate to population and all states have equal representation in the Senate.

It's after effect, disproportionate representation in the Electoral College, has some modern day value, in that it forces presidential candidates to pay attention and travel to small states. It's not what the framers intended, of course, but it tends to have that effect.

Principles are important, however, and ignoring them can have realworld effects.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Bixler]

Memorandum From the State of Florida:

We, the people of Florida, are holding this election hostage. When you promise to stop sending us your old people, we will release your election.

[Ees]

Just to add another foreign voice...

The thing that never fails to surprise (amuse) me is how in the US, "liberals" are generally considered to be halfway "socialist", and "socialist" most definately equals "communist". The short summary seems to be that liberal==socialist==communist.

Our "liberal" party is generally considered to be positioned on the moderate right-wing of the political spectrum. (In actual fact, liberalism is not about left or right at all. It's about putting individual freedom above all else; a theme that would fit the US perfectly, I believe. This generally translates into striving for less government influence. Privatizing parts of social security would be a typical Dutch liberal theme.)

From our viewpoint, the US Democrats would probably qualify as moderately right-wing liberals. The Republican themes are most closely mirrored by our confessional parties, which get a small (although loyal) share of the voters. The "extreme right-wing" parties just want to toss out the foreigners; fortunately, they live a marginal existence at the moment.

Holland (a democratic monarchy) is governed by a coalition of three parties: Social Democrats, Liberals (both about equally large) and a smaller fraction of "Democrats". Other significant fractions in parliament include Christian Democrats (far less extreme than the other confessional parties) and a "Green" party (socialist, although they're almost afraid to use the word). However, thanks to the blossoming economy, the distinctions between the different parties are a lot smaller than they used to be.

Our parliament is voted directly. The senate is voted "indirectly" (by the members of some sort of intermediate province-based governments which *are* voted directly, although usually the voters don't show up...). Our prime minister is chosen during the coalition negotiations (generally, (s)he'd be the head of the largest coalition party). The thrown is, of course, inherited.

On a side note: could any of you explain the social security system in the USA? I constantly get the feeling that there already is very little (in terms of unemployment/pensioners welfare, public health care insurances, etc), yet many people seem to be anxious to toss out even the bits that are there. Just curious, not trying to open up another can.

Martin