Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on May 06, 2005, 01:26:31 PM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/06/60minutes/main693422.shtml
my favorite quote...
"In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic," says Putin.
another good one
The principle of appointing regional leaders is not a sign of a lack of democracy," Putin retorts. "You're absolutely wrong. For instance, India is called the largest world democracy. But their governors have always been appointed by the central government and nobody disputes that India is not a democracy."
Gotta say I agree with him about the electoral college thing. Time for it to go.
-
United States is a Republic.
-
then who is the empire?
-
Putin is all over the news these days, what with the POTUS heading over there for the celebrations and all. In the last couple of weeks I have heard that this is the anniversary of the end of WWII. That includes newspapers, news channels, websites (news ones entertainment ones and blogs), and even in discussions with other people. It is really beginning to bug me too, I read one article in the op-ed page of the local newpaper that said it three times in one story.
Well here and now on the AH-BBS you can find out for the first time this year that WWII did NOT end in May of 1945!
-
Originally posted by john9001
United States is a Republic.
A republic with strong democratic traditions.
-
Boroda, put down the vodka and join in. ;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
United States is a Republic.
We won't be an empire until Bush kills off all the Jedi.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
We won't be an empire until Bush kills off all the Jedi.
the Jedi are weak. just take away all their midiclorians and they suck like the rest of us
-
everytime i hear putin, i think st dennis and franco-phone strippers.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
[url]
Gotta say I agree with him about the electoral college thing. Time for it to go.
Be careful of what you wish for.
-
Why ?
Your democratie is already ill ... how many have voted for the last elections ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why ?
Your democratie is already ill ... how many have voted for the last elections ?
118,699,542 out of an (estimated, July 2005) 295,734,134.
40%
-
Originally posted by indy007
118,699,542 out of an (estimated, July 2005) 295,734,134.
40%
It was over 50% if you count registered voters. Still fairly dismal turnout if you ask me.
-
everytime i hear putin, i think st dennis and franco-phone strippers.
LOL :D
-
IIRC the US is a "Representative Republic"
The Electoral college is just as important today as it was when it was enacted.
I think the votecount needs to be slightly reviewed a bit and it's flawed that we creat "battleground" states.
-
what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states.
Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3
Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states
Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).
-
Al Gore, on the Electoral College.
(http://www.meaus.com/2004-al-gore.JPEG)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states.
Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3
Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states
Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).
wouldnt that take away from the millions of people that live in heavily populated states? Wouldnt that be the same as the senate electing the president?
-
In Russia, bathhroon go to YOU!
-
PR a state? isn't that NY?
a state of what?? lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wouldnt that take away from the millions of people that live in heavily populated states? Wouldnt that be the same as the senate electing the president?
No the people vote in the state just as they do now. depending on how the people of that state vote goes thats how the vote goes for that state.
As it stands now it takes away from the people in less populated states making that states vote less important.
Each state should be equally as important as the next.
-
Boroda, put down the vodka and join in.
Didn't you know they did the old soviet style cleanup in Moscow for the celebrations again?
Boroda was probably hauled away with the rest of them. :D
-
The Electoral college is just as important today as it was when it was enacted.
Why would you say this? The majority should rule.
Each state should be equally as important as the next.
People should be equally important, not states. Alaska should not have the same voting power as Florida.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Didn't you know they did the old soviet style cleanup in Moscow for the celebrations again?
Boroda was probably hauled away with the rest of them. :D
Hm. I don't remember the last time I was checked by militia in the street. I don't look like a terrorist, more like a hippyish Orthodox priest :p
About cleanup: I see less bums now, militia warriors with full equipment including gas masks on every corner (I wonder what will happen if they'll put them on, probably the biggest panic since October 16th 1941).
Estel is on duty, he works in Moscow Rescue Service.
This morning a friend of mine from E-burg came, he stays at my place. He had no problems here so far.
-
Originally posted by john9001
United States is a Republic.
What does that mean for you ?
Islamic republic of Iran is also republic and president is elected by people, not electors.
What do you mean by that ?
-
The United States is a Democratic Republic.
Not to be confused with a pure democracy.
dago
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Why would you say this? The majority should rule.
People should be equally important, not states. Alaska should not have the same voting power as Florida.
The United States is NOT a democracy.
Alexander Hamilton, in Senate: "It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: their figure deformity."
James Madison said: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor, wrote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Thomas Jefferson, in the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions, wrote: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1788, stated: "There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly."
Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
George Washington, April 30, 1789: "The...destiny of the republican model of government (is) justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally stacked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
Lastly, from the 1928 U.S. Army training manual:
"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards laws is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
There's a very good reason for the electoral college and it's there because the Founders knew it was necessary to, in the words of Hamilton,
" to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
-
Well, Novgorod Republic existed almost 1000 years before USA.
I wonder why our new-fangled patriotic democratic power doesn't use a slogan of 1000-years old Russian democratic tradition :D
Many people even here seriously believe that democracy was invented by George Washington...
As for me - I don't think that democracy is a basic value. I don't care. I pity people who irrationally religiously worship "democracy".
-
Originally posted by Raider179
A republic with strong democratic traditions.
I would say "country with stong offensive millitary tradition".
-
Originally posted by Dago
The United States is a Democratic Republic.
Not to be confused with a pure democracy.
dago
"Democratic Republic" sounds like "antropophagic cannibal". Two words meaning the same thing in different languages.
-
In a democracy the power is theoretically given to the average not the most intelligent. But those who control the media have the real power.
-
Originally posted by mora
In a democracy the power is theoretically given to the stupidest. But those who control the media have the real power.
Exactly. "Democracy" is a curtain that hides real puppet masters, and shifts responsibility upon "voters".
-
Thats fascinating Toad. But whether its a Republic or a Democracy, the majority should be making the decisions. Do you know why the electoral college sometimes gives power to the minorities? Its because of population census errors.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
But whether its a Republic or a Democracy, the majority should be making the decisions.
You realize you are in direct opposition to the Founding Fathers, right?
You further realize, as those quotes above point out, that "simple majority" governments do not have a history of enduring.
Do the words "bread and circuses" ring any bells?
Errors in the Census don't invalidate the Electoral College concept. I'm quite certain the Census is far more accurate now than it was when the Electoral College was instituted. The Founders knew there'd be Census errors.
In your vein of thought, we'd be unable to hold any elections at all, even with simple majority rule. Because I'm sure you admit there will be at least ONE issue of voter fraud which would invalidate the whole election.
-
Populations fluctuate between the censuses. And in support of our founding fathers, the majority of the people elect the person they want to represent them.
The population fluctuations between censuses are the causes of Presidents losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral vote.
-
hmm.. thought we were a democratic republic with 50 states.
The country was intended to focus on states rights and that is what the electorial college does. I certainly don't want new york and california deciding the way of Utah and Idaho say.
lazs
-
There is a reason that our country is a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy.
It's so that 51% of the population can't take rights away from the other 49%.
Remember Putin's excuse for getting rid of telivised electoral debates?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Remember Putin's excuse for getting rid of telivised electoral debates?
What? Getting rid? Did I miss something?
He refused to take part in debates, not banned them, in fact they were useless but funny. Unfortunately other presidental candidates on the last elections were just clowns, useful only for entertaiment.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Populations fluctuate between the censuses.
No kidding. The Census is every 10 years. Of course it fluctuates.
The Constitution includes the phrase "[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
The Founders KNEW populations were going to fluctuate. So, since they knew that, it's not a factor in the debate over the Electoral College.
The EC was set up based on a 10 year Census. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What? Getting rid? Did I miss something?
He refused to take part in debates, not banned them, in fact they were useless but funny. Unfortunately other presidental candidates on the last elections were just clowns, useful only for entertaiment.
That's like saying, "Bush didn't get rid of presidential election debates, he just refused to participate in them."
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
People should be equally important, not states. Alaska should not have the same voting power as Florida.
Why not? Arent the people of Alaska as important as the people in Fla?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What? Getting rid? Did I miss something?
Unfortunately other presidental candidates on the last elections were just clowns, useful only for entertaiment.
Were they really?
Or did the Media (now again controled by your government I beleive, but correct me if Im wrong)
Simply spin them that way?
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Why would you say this? The majority should rule.
People should be equally important, not states. Alaska should not have the same voting power as Florida.
Given your premise here the elections would be decided by a small minority of states. IIRC 7 contain the majority of the population. That would mean the election could be decided without any need to consult the other 43 states. Highly urbanized states would in effect control all of the government. Does that sound fair to you? Hint; there is a reason why the senate is based on 2 from each state.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why not? Arent the people of Alaska as important as the people in Fla?
yes they are but there's were the "majority rule" comes into play. The states themselves don't elect a president its the states electors. They cast their vote the way the population does.....BUT some states IIRC have a split vote....or they're working on that.....
Without the electoral college I could campaign in NY and CA and promise those two states all the bennies in the world on a silver platter. I could get elected on those two states votes alone and not have to worry about any other state in the union. With the electoral votes other states have a "weighted value" so to speak, based on population.
Alaska has very few possible votes but they still count because of their electoral votes.
I know there was talk about enacting a "split vote" here in cali but I havnt heard anything since. Basically the state would split it's 55 votes among the canidates based on results.
Without the electoral college you TAKE AWAY power from the smaller states.
-
They electoral college was set up because it was believed that the average citizen wasn't smart enought to decide who should be president....Only recently have electors had to vote with the mojority of the state's population..they used to have a free hand to vote how they wanted.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Without the electoral college I could campaign in NY and CA and promise those two states all the bennies in the world on a silver platter. I could get elected on those two states votes alone and not have to worry about any other state in the union. With the electoral votes other states have a "weighted value" so to speak, based on population.
Alaska has very few possible votes but they still count because of their electoral votes.
No, the way its set up now Cali and NY are more important then Alaska because of the electoral votes. those are the states that they do promise the world to.
California is worth 55 votes and NY is worth 31 while Alaska is worth a whopping 3 votes.
How does that rate ALaska equally as important as NY or Cali?
Where would you campaign and make your promises to if you were running?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Electoral_map450.jpg)
My way each state would be equally important. 1 state gets 1 vote. With DC or Peurto Rico acting as the tiebreaker.
The way it is now. No way can it be said Alaska is viewed to be as important as California.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No, the way its set up now Cali and NY are more important then Alaska because of the electoral votes. those are the states that they do promise the world to.
California is worth 55 votes and NY is worth 31 while Alaska is worth a whopping 3 votes.
How does that rate ALaska equally as important as NY or Cali?
Where would you campaign and make your promises to if you were running?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Electoral_map450.jpg)
My way each state would be equally important. 1 state gets 1 vote. With DC or Peurto Rico acting as the tiebreaker.
The way it is now. No way can it be said Alaska is viewed to be as important as California.
first off I was refferring to an election W/O the EC. In that instance the Population alone in both of those states is enough to win a national election.
Second California and NY are more heavily weighted because of their population. That only seems fair to me that the will of 20 million citizens should have more weight than the will of 800,000
If Alaska had the population that cali did it would be equally important. To me the current system is rather fair as compared to one state one vote.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
first off I was refferring to an election W/O the EC. In that instance the Population alone in both of those states is enough to win a national election.
Second California and NY are more heavily weighted because of their population. That only seems fair to me that the will of 20 million citizens should have more weight than the will of 800,000
If Alaska had the population that cali did it would be equally important. To me the current system is rather fair as compared to one state one vote.
Musta misread your post
But then you wouldnt have in Hamiltons words
" to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
The less populated states become a minority of sorts and thus less equal leaving them open to exactly that. "The injustices of the other part"
-
In the last election if done my way Bush still would have won with 27 states.
Interestingly enough. You dont have to win even half the 50 states to win the presidency.
All it takes is 11 under the current system.
So theoretically 11 states can decide who is president reguardless of what the other 39 want
and that seems fair?
-
Finally, as the election of 1888 demonstrates, the Electoral College system imposes two requirements on candidates for the presidency:
that the victor obtain a sufficient popular vote to enable him to govern (although this may not be the absolute majority), and
that such a popular vote be sufficiently distributed across the country to enable him to govern.
Such an arrangement ensures a regional balance of support which is a vital consideration in governing a large and diverse nation (even though in close elections, as in 1888, distribution of support may take precedence over majority of support).
Also, there have been 8 cases of fathless electors in our history. NONE of those electors affected the outcome of the race.
It works. It's a good thing.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Musta misread your post
But then you wouldnt have in Hamiltons words
" to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
The less populated states become a minority of sorts and thus less equal leaving them open to exactly that. "The injustices of the other part"
I guess we can agree to disagree. I think the EC gives "fair weight" to all CITIZNES of the states. Alaska has their votes because of the population....California has theirs likewise.
I mainly disagree with your point because your way is empowering lesser populated states unfairly. It would put the will of a few hundred thousand against the will of millions. To me there's just too much inequity in that. :)
-
Originally posted by Suave
That's like saying, "Bush didn't get rid of presidential election debates, he just refused to participate in them."
Is it wrong? He had let other clowns perform the "debates" without him, but still won getting over 70% of votes. Could Bush afford it?
I didn't vote at the last presidental elections. I don't like Putin and I didn't want to vote for other clowns. On the next elections I'll vote for communists, not because I support them (they are the same bloody thiefs as any other *******s in Russian politics), but because they are the only organised opposition to the regime.
Anyway - it's only games.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Were they really?
Or did the Media (now again controled by your government I beleive, but correct me if Im wrong)
Simply spin them that way?
Sure. Like Caligula's horse. Sorry, horse had more intelligence. Example: Liberal-democratic party candidate was not the chairman but his security chief...
Putin is irrationally popular here.
Media is not controlled by the government. We have all the range of opinions on TV (even more in newspapers), from government-approved Western propaganda to "patriotic" and Orthodox church hallucinations.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states.
Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3
Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states
Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).
Each state = one vote.
That's a very solid federalist approach. This can work.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"Democratic Republic" sounds like "antropophagic cannibal". Two words meaning the same thing in different languages.
Perfect comparison.
And I am not talking about "Cannibal Republic".
Toad is explaining it too well.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Suave
That's like saying, "Bush didn't get rid of presidential election debates, he just refused to participate in them."
And there is a big difference beetween "not participating" and "getting read of".
I wonder what really american AGITPROP reported about about Putin and Russian presidential candidates' debates.
:confused:
-
rule of the majority... :rofl
Most of the people I meet are complete morons. What does that say about the rule of the majority?
A vote is a way for a group of people to decide on a specific issue they debated and know all there is to know about. In modern mass democracy you vote for someone who will do the studying and thinking in your place.
Even the idea of voting for someone who will represent your idiology is mute since:
1. if you have only 2-4 serious parties you will find it hard to find one that really represent YOUR idiology. Definitly 1 person president won't.
2. Major parties don't really have idiology anymore, only different sponsers.
3. (most) People don't have idiologies anymore, only interests.
4. People are cluless. They don't know or don't want to know all the details. If they do, the media makes a great effort in feeding them biased or irrelevant or wrong or none information.
To sum this up, democracy can only really be applied to small comunities where people are strongly involved in what's going on. I'm afraid that western democracy is on the decline. Democracy without real idiology is just a jungle.
Bozon
-
what we need to do is get rid of thise whole electoral votes system and just go by states.
Forget this nonsence of Fla being worth 27 votes ad North Dakota being worth 3
Just go by states then each state becomes equally important. And not just the most populated states
Just so we dont have a tie we can treat Washington DC as a state or make Puerto Rico a state,( which is long overdue).
Well I live in this god forsaken island I guess the most important obstacle you have for the island to become a state is both the politicians and the unwillingness of congress to have the 100 by 25 equivelant of the Bronx and the just plain ignorance of people.
Believe you me half the island doesn't want to become a state and most of congress don't want this friggin' island, PR will be a colony until it's handed out to another power or the inevitable independence which will make the island descend into civil war :D
A real life zoo just like Haiti or any other god forsaken caribbean island :D
-
I think Putin has a point or two. American democracy seems a far cry from how the Greeks originally invisaged it.
...-Gixer