Questions about the voting system in USA

[eppie]

First off, as an American, I don't much care how you think our elections should be done, you don't live here. [QUOTE]

As a person, I vallue everybodies opinion. If an american has a well argumented opinion on how the political system in my country (Holland) is I am happy to respond him and exchange opinions with him even if he has not the same ideas as me.

We Americans don't much care for monarchies, the European model that it took two world wars to break.

I know you know your historical facts quiet well (from previous posts). So I guess you write this to get comments. (a troll thread it was called :P ) In my country the royal family has almost nothing to say for quiet some time now.

Back to the point, I hope "how elections are done" in your country pleases you, since that is where you live and vote.

I am as a matter of fact, the results don't always please me but the system is not very bad. One disadvantage (I mentioned earlier) is that it often takes ages to form a government after elections.

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."

I wonder what italy would look like if there was another political system . My opinion is that despite of their inability to "perform" politics they still did not slip of into a bananarepublic. Which might have been the case in another system.

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.

I understand that that what's going on now are primary elections. Still I have the question, why don't they (e.g. all the democrats) vote at the same time. (I don't care so much about the results, but is it not an unfair way of voting?). The reason I can come up with is that at least now, in the end you have a clear winner, while otherwise you could end up with one candidate with 40 % of the votes and number 2 with 38 %. That would create too much problems in the party and would lead to votes going to the other party. What do you think about this?.

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.

This is true and also with us a (lesser) problem. People do not vote for the candidate they like the most (let's say Nader) because if they vote for him a vote gets lost for the democrats, and the republicans have more chance to win. This means if you vote for the "third candidate" your vote is lost. (I know this is only for presidential elections, in senate there are also members from other than the two big parties am I right?)

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.

This is an example of your " to Lurkers famous, irony" or not?. Anyway I am always happy to react. I actually like america very much, also most americans I know. I am only sorry to see that a handful of people are very busy in destroying that country which I like so much.

[QUOTE]As John Wayne once said, in a movie: "Life's tough, but it's really tough when you are stupid."

and everybody knows that everything he says is true!

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.

I don't think you have the money for that! :P

Seriously, I did not think about it like that (although it had nothing to do with the initial post).
You must bare in mind that we had a lot of countries which borders were made by some kings or other leaders, not giving anything about putting different peoples in one country. I think europe is more stable now because a lot of these things have been "resolved" now.


Anyway I don't think this topic was started to get a "sandbox" fight between europeans and americans. I am still walking around with a few questions. (a few were in this post).

Most important (a problem which is not only american): can somebody with leftisch ideas without support of wealthy people and companies make a chance to get into the white house (and I don't mean on a field trip). I seem to remember (not sure) that at the beginning of the 19th century the US had a larger communist movement than russia.

eppie