02-18-2004, 02:46 PM
First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live here. We Americans don't much care for monarchies, the European model that it took two world wars to break. You are all most welcome for our assistance along those lines. IIRC the Swedes were nice enough to supply Hitler with the Heavy Water for his Atomic Bomb project. Boys will be boys, I suppose. :unsure:
Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you live and vote.
Warblade is a big fan of MMP in New Zealand, you might want to ask him the merits and demerits of that system. Not living under it, I am not qualified to explain it in-expertly.
The Parliamentary system has its shortcomings as well. I offer you Italy and Germany as the alpha and the Omega. Italy has had some 56 governments rise and fall, since 1945, as the various coalitions, corruption, and no confidence votes have changed "who is in power." In Italy, the rich elite have always been in power, and IMO the politics are to entertain the people . . . but I could be wrong. In Germany, so strong a consensus was available that Helmut Kohl held office for 17 y ears. I think that is some kind of record for a bona fide multi party system in a free society. He held his coalition together like a proper Holy Roman Emperor, but in the end, the Electors (Kurfursts) sent him packing. ;)
The single advantage that I see to a system where more parties have a shot at the prize, or can get their agendas across via coalitions, is that more people probably feel as though they have a stake in the game, whether they do in reality or not.
As to media coverage and exit polls, as far a I am concerned, a 24 hour news blackout on the election results would make sense to me, since our country spans three time zones. Given that California has the most electoral votes, their vote always counts.
What you are now seeing in America is the primary elections. That is an election internal to each party to see who gets to run for office seats.
The current Primary is a series of elections, state by state, whereby the Democrats (and Repbulicans see below) winnow out their candidates until one stands supreme and becomes his party nomination. This is not the election. The Republicans, like the Democrats of 1996, have no need to run a primary since the party has chosen to back the incumbent: President Bush.
Iin 1968 I watched as Hubert Humphrey and Edwin Muskey and Sen. Robert Kennedy battled for who would run for the Democrats, and I watched Nixon win over George Romney and others, IIRC Ronald Reagan was in the mix.
In 1988, something similar happened. The Democrats and Republicans ran primaries at the same time. George Bush won over Jack Kemp, among others, and Michael Dukakis won over Gary Hart and Bob Kerry, though Hart's sex scandal with Donna Rice had as much to do with his loss as anything else.
As to the election itself, the biggest problem is voter turn out. Getting people to register and then to actually hit the voting booths has been a huge problem for some years. As to the electoral process, it is as described in the post above. More than once, to include John Adams and Benjamin Harrison, and now George W. Bush, the Electoral College has voted differently than the popular vote. Part of why this system is in place, besides historically, seems to be to avoid the "tyrranny of the majority," if that makes any sense at all. It sometimes does not to me, but it is a part of the checks and balances system in our Constitution. The number of "electors" is determined by the Senate and the House Representation in the Congress.
The lack of a viable and resiliant third party has been a lamentable shortcoming in the American Political scene since about 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose party ticket to oppose his former Vice President, W H Taft. All he did was ensure Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, a win. The same can be said for Wallace in 1968, Perot in 1992, and to a lesser extent, Nader in 2000. A third party candidate typically hurts one candidate and does not "steal votes" from the other. What is currently apparent is that the "two parties" are very keen to prevent the creation of a third party, since one of them would lose out in a major way. What is lacking is the initiative of all of the non voters, some 30% at least of the elibigle to register population, to form a third party. In America, as elsewhere, if you don't care, you get the government you deserve.
If another of you nice Europeans wants to chime in about what you don't like about America, I will offer you this in advance.
If you Europeans had not had your heads so far up your asses, and been so bound and determined to kill each other off in the twentieth century, America would not have filled the power vacuum you all left thanks to your infantile bickering and your depopulating your continent via the sword.
As John Wayne once said, in a movie: "Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid."
Dear Europe: if the shoe fits, wear it. What appears to be happening now is that, with 50 years of protection from America to allow Europe to grow without killing each other, y'all seem to be playing nicer in the sandbox with each other. Good for all of you, and if you are extra good, I will buy you all an ice cream. :P
Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you live and vote.
Warblade is a big fan of MMP in New Zealand, you might want to ask him the merits and demerits of that system. Not living under it, I am not qualified to explain it in-expertly.
The Parliamentary system has its shortcomings as well. I offer you Italy and Germany as the alpha and the Omega. Italy has had some 56 governments rise and fall, since 1945, as the various coalitions, corruption, and no confidence votes have changed "who is in power." In Italy, the rich elite have always been in power, and IMO the politics are to entertain the people . . . but I could be wrong. In Germany, so strong a consensus was available that Helmut Kohl held office for 17 y ears. I think that is some kind of record for a bona fide multi party system in a free society. He held his coalition together like a proper Holy Roman Emperor, but in the end, the Electors (Kurfursts) sent him packing. ;)
The single advantage that I see to a system where more parties have a shot at the prize, or can get their agendas across via coalitions, is that more people probably feel as though they have a stake in the game, whether they do in reality or not.
As to media coverage and exit polls, as far a I am concerned, a 24 hour news blackout on the election results would make sense to me, since our country spans three time zones. Given that California has the most electoral votes, their vote always counts.
What you are now seeing in America is the primary elections. That is an election internal to each party to see who gets to run for office seats.
The current Primary is a series of elections, state by state, whereby the Democrats (and Repbulicans see below) winnow out their candidates until one stands supreme and becomes his party nomination. This is not the election. The Republicans, like the Democrats of 1996, have no need to run a primary since the party has chosen to back the incumbent: President Bush.
Iin 1968 I watched as Hubert Humphrey and Edwin Muskey and Sen. Robert Kennedy battled for who would run for the Democrats, and I watched Nixon win over George Romney and others, IIRC Ronald Reagan was in the mix.
In 1988, something similar happened. The Democrats and Republicans ran primaries at the same time. George Bush won over Jack Kemp, among others, and Michael Dukakis won over Gary Hart and Bob Kerry, though Hart's sex scandal with Donna Rice had as much to do with his loss as anything else.
As to the election itself, the biggest problem is voter turn out. Getting people to register and then to actually hit the voting booths has been a huge problem for some years. As to the electoral process, it is as described in the post above. More than once, to include John Adams and Benjamin Harrison, and now George W. Bush, the Electoral College has voted differently than the popular vote. Part of why this system is in place, besides historically, seems to be to avoid the "tyrranny of the majority," if that makes any sense at all. It sometimes does not to me, but it is a part of the checks and balances system in our Constitution. The number of "electors" is determined by the Senate and the House Representation in the Congress.
The lack of a viable and resiliant third party has been a lamentable shortcoming in the American Political scene since about 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose party ticket to oppose his former Vice President, W H Taft. All he did was ensure Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, a win. The same can be said for Wallace in 1968, Perot in 1992, and to a lesser extent, Nader in 2000. A third party candidate typically hurts one candidate and does not "steal votes" from the other. What is currently apparent is that the "two parties" are very keen to prevent the creation of a third party, since one of them would lose out in a major way. What is lacking is the initiative of all of the non voters, some 30% at least of the elibigle to register population, to form a third party. In America, as elsewhere, if you don't care, you get the government you deserve.
If another of you nice Europeans wants to chime in about what you don't like about America, I will offer you this in advance.
If you Europeans had not had your heads so far up your asses, and been so bound and determined to kill each other off in the twentieth century, America would not have filled the power vacuum you all left thanks to your infantile bickering and your depopulating your continent via the sword.
As John Wayne once said, in a movie: "Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid."
Dear Europe: if the shoe fits, wear it. What appears to be happening now is that, with 50 years of protection from America to allow Europe to grow without killing each other, y'all seem to be playing nicer in the sandbox with each other. Good for all of you, and if you are extra good, I will buy you all an ice cream. :P
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete