Amerika

[metadigital]

Just in case you think I'm not English I'd like to self-deprecate and point out that in our last general election the International observers were 'deeply troubled' by the levels of ballot fraud. God help us if we move to fully electronic.

 

Meta: "... I have a touch of your condition. That cannot bear the accent of reproof!"

 

Richard the Third.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really liked Sir Ian McKellan's portrayal of King Richard III in the updated film version (with Nazis, natch).

 

On topic: I have voted in the IEE elections in Britain for years using a fully electronic system. The problem is that it is non-trivial, and the government is trying to make it trivial. (Some paranoia about the Labour Party's electoral demographics and correlated ability to understand technology, perhaps?).

[Walsingham]

I think the important thing for us to keep in mind is that whatever they decide, provided they do so democratically we have to put on a brave face and welcome it. Personally, though I think a federal Iraq is a neat idea. There are distinct differences, and I think a loose federation is the best way to allows for slow acclimatisation to a shared future. Afghanistan should be paying attention.

[metadigital]

Yeah, I had a racous debating circle of co-workers at a recent site where we discussed the Iraq democracy. It was quite an unpalatable pill to swallow for some, that the Iraqis were free to elect whomever they wanted, even if it was Saddam Hussein!

 

After all, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge did very well in Cambodia's first democratic elections after the Killing Fields of his Agrarian Communist revolution ...

[Gabrielle]

"We need breathing room!"

[Calax]

To comment on the Electoral college, The smaller states like Wyoming and Rhode Island won't allow the College to be removed because that would make their possible infulence even smaller than it already is. Most people would consider this incredibly stupid but that's election politics. It gives the smaller states a slight amount of bargining power, even tho you only have to get like the 13 most populated states to vote for you and you've won...

 

I can't believe what happened when I left!

[metadigital]

What the Australian Federal system does is gives all states two senators (in the Upper House, which passes parliamentary legislation into law), and has a proportional representation for the Lower House (which is where legislation is created and debated).

 

I think that is a fair compromise. Then again, Australia was the first place to give women the vote (not the first country: NZ beat them at the federal level, but South Australia was the first electorate in the world to give women the vote).

[EnderAndrew]

Nominally, this thread is all about America.  In reality, however, I think it's about democracy.  I think it's about trying to keep your friends even when you have a striking difference of opinion regarding a variety of issues.  It's about trying to solve your problems with dialogue rather than violence.  ...And, because it's about all of these things, it's about Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The original post wasn't about democracy, but rather flag waving.

 

Those in power who take pride in themselves are seen as arrogantly gloating, but those who are minorities or not on power can take pride in themselves.

 

I think the double-standard is pretty stupid.

 

I also think any generalization applied to 290 million people is stupid.

[metadigital]

SpellMar says that all generalisations are wrong.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm fired. Good catch.

[metadigital]

Just watching your back.

[Reveilled]

The system I've always had in my head as the ideal democratic system is this:

 

Executive:

All positions within the executive branch are elected individually, to ensure that the majority of opinion on each individual issue is reflected in the government, instead of the party situation which we have at present where you elect a group of policies regardless if you don't like some of them.

The leader of the Executive branch has no official powers, and acts as a mediator between the different branches of the executive to help smooth running of the government. However, the leader's main function is effectively that of an investigative journalist. To help ferret out corruption, the leader of the country is the one charged with rooting it out. The leader will give short daily reports and longer weekly ones on the specific workings of the government, what is being debated, what is causing argument, and so on. This serves to keep the electorate informed by someone at the heart of government. The person elected to this position should be chosen for their character and integrity rather than their ideological beliefs.

 

Legislature:

There are two houses, a lower chamber elected through proportional representation, and an upper chamber elected through a first-past-the-post system. Members of political parties are not eligible for election to the upper chamber. The lower chamber drafts legislation and votes according to national interests, that is, what the representatives' political parties believe is the way the country should be run. The upper chamber approves legislation, and each representative is required to vote only in the best interests of his or her constituents, and not on the basis of ideology (hence the restriction on political paries).

 

The Judiciary branch is not particularly important to the basic system.

 

The general idea is to keep the government as accountable to its electorate as possible between elections while keeping the level of direct democracy--which is a headache to implement efficiently in lage countries--to a minimum.

 

Maybe I should try and meet with the Iraqi government and propose it. "

[Deraldin]

I'm fired.  Good catch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What catch? The only thing I can think of is the s/z thing, but either is acceptable...

[Calax]

Maybe I should try and meet with the Iraqi government and propose it. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think one has to be either a bush cronie or a Iraqi power player to actually suggest things.

[Reveilled]

Maybe I should try and meet with the Iraqi government and propose it. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think one has to be either a bush cronie or a Iraqi power player to actually suggest things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe I should just try and meet with Tony Blair and ask him to pass along a message for me then.

[Cantousent]

The original post was about flag waving. The erudite members of this forum have cut past the fluff and gotten to the real heart of the matter... democracy. I didn't join to defend my flag. I chose to join to defend what that flag represented. Yeah, if someone wanted to take my flag and burn it, they could expect my boot across their face. ...But that doesn't make me a rabid flag waver.

 

EDIT: I think folks have a right to burn their own US flags. When I said "my flag" I mean a flag that I, personally, possess

[Commissar]

Nominally, this thread is all about America.  In reality, however, I think it's about democracy.  I think it's about trying to keep your friends even when you have a striking difference of opinion regarding a variety of issues.  It's about trying to solve your problems with dialogue rather than violence.  ...And, because it's about all of these things, it's about Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The original post wasn't about democracy, but rather flag waving.

 

Those in power who take pride in themselves are seen as arrogantly gloating, but those who are minorities or not on power can take pride in themselves.

 

I think the double-standard is pretty stupid.

 

I also think any generalization applied to 290 million people is stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you're wrong, but that's okay.

 

I'd be just as ticked off about a small country with no claim to superiority running around telling the world it's the greatest thing since sliced cheese as I am about a big country with no claim to superiority doing so.

[metadigital]

The system I've always had in my head as the ideal democratic system is this:

 

Executive:

All positions within the executive branch are elected individually, to ensure that the majority of opinion on each individual issue is reflected in the government, instead of the party situation which we have at present where you elect a group of policies regardless if you don't like some of them.

The leader of the Executive branch has no official powers, and acts as a mediator between the different branches of the executive to help smooth running of the government.  However, the leader's main function is effectively that of an investigative journalist.  To help ferret out corruption, the leader of the country is the one charged with rooting it out.  The leader will give short daily reports and longer weekly ones on the specific workings of the government, what is being debated, what is causing argument, and so on.  This serves to keep the electorate informed by someone at the heart of government.  The person elected to this position should be chosen for their character and integrity rather than their ideological beliefs.

 

Legislature:

There are two houses, a lower chamber elected through proportional representation, and an upper chamber elected through a first-past-the-post system.  Members of political parties are not eligible for election to the upper chamber.  The lower chamber drafts legislation and votes according to national interests, that is, what the representatives' political parties believe is the way the country should be run.  The upper chamber approves legislation, and each representative is required to vote only in the best interests of his or her constituents, and not on the basis of ideology (hence the restriction on political paries).

 

The Judiciary branch is not particularly important to the basic system. 

 

The general idea is to keep the government as accountable to its electorate as possible between elections while keeping the level of direct democracy--which is a headache to implement efficiently in lage countries--to a minimum.

 

Maybe I should try and meet with the Iraqi government and propose it. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. The judiciary is very important, as the third pillar of the trinity, with Executive and Legislative pillars. It interprets the laws, so it needs to have both erudition and rectitude.

 

2. I'm not sure I follow the intricacies of your upper house: it sounds like it might not be prgamatic (how many members, for a start: you do realise how difficult it would be to find people who are at once able to deal with the public service, the "apparatchiks", and yet this "career politician" will need to be unallied with any political party: sounds good in theory, but I wouldn't think it would float IRL). Also, the party allegiance system is, among other things, just a clumsy way to prevent personal bias entering the political arena (too strongly).

[Commissar]

The resistance in France was considerably greater than the Iraqi resistence.  ...And the Germans treated resistance far more ruthlessly during world war two than the U.S. does now.  The resistance in Germany was far more violent than the Iraqi resistance.

 

Let's be honest here, whether we were right or wrong to invade Iraq, how many of you truly believe that most Iraqi's support the insurgency?  The United States doesn't act like Saddam Hussein.  The citizens could be doing so much more to hamper the coalition.  I see the response in Iraq as more or less positive in terms of politics, even though the country remains a mess.

 

The insurgency is a phenomenal failure in terms of creating a real effect in military terms.  The United States can afford to lose the same number of servicemen every year, real deaths of real American citizens, and not even blink in terms of actual numbers of military in country.  The problem isn't that the resistance will overpower the United States military.  The true goal is to force the American public to balk at the loss of life and force a policy change.

 

The resistance movement in countries during world war two wasn't meant to sway public opinion in Germany.  It was meant to have an actual effect on the war effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't matter if the insurgency is a failure in military terms, because that's not the fight it's trying to win. You pointed out exactly what its goals are; to cause American public support to drop to the point where everyone just gets sick of George's Middle Eastern Adventure and pulls up stakes. And, at the moment, it's working; approval ratings for the administration's handling of Iraq are at an all-time low, and recruitment numbers are...well, let's just say they're not going up. We have nowhere near our full force committed in Iraq, it's true, but as long as we're going to keep the current military configuration - the ability to fight two fronts at once - we're simply going to run out of people.

 

And that's what's going to happen, because a people won't support a war without clearly defined and apparently obtainable goals - and a plan to accomplish those goals. Anyone who thinks we have that in place now is just dead wrong. It's also hard to drive wartime recruitment when the war itself isn't one of self-defense. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on perspective) people have gradually started to realize that Iraq is not and never was a war necessary for the protection of America.

 

There are and always will be a few folks who want to go play in the sandbox, but by and large people are plenty content to chickenhawk it out.

[Commissar]

The original post was about flag waving.  The erudite members of this forum have cut past the fluff and gotten to the real heart of the matter... democracy.  I didn't join to defend my flag.  I chose to join to defend what that flag represented.  Yeah, if someone wanted to take my flag and burn it, they could expect my boot across their face.  ...But that doesn't make me a rabid flag waver.

 

EDIT:  I think folks have a right to burn their own US flags.  When I said "my flag" I mean a flag that I, personally, possess

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the original post was not about democracy, in point of fact. It was about rampant patriotism. There are plenty of democracies throughout the world that don't make me shake my head in disbelief. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the other democracies of the world don't have a counterpart for the redneck holding court in the back woods of Carolina, explaining why every other country on earth sucks in comparison to the US of A, despite the fact that he's never been further from home than Raleigh.

 

We are an astonishingly stupid nation that nevertheless maintains that there never has been, isn't, and never will be any state in the world to equal us - in anything.

[metadigital]

Yeah, what about Cricket! (And the America's Cup!)

[Cantousent]

You've imported a lot of thoughts that haven't been represented in this thread, Commissar.

 

...And, the original post doesn't matter. For all we know, it was an attempt to troll. The vast majority of this thread is a well reasoned discussion of democratic principles. That's the heart of the thread.

 

Furthermore, the original post was a quote of an exchange between us. Should we have included my original post in full with your response beneath, we would have ended up in a discussion of democracy in the first place.

[Commissar]

You've imported a lot of thoughts that haven't been represented in this thread, Commissar.

 

...And, the original post doesn't matter.  For all we know, it was an attempt to troll.  The vast majority of this thread is a well reasoned discussion of democratic principles.  That's the heart of the thread.

 

Furthermore, the original post was a quote of an exchange between us.  Should we have included my original post in full with your response beneath, we would have ended up in a discussion of democracy in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think I have.

 

How you guys got from me whining about American arrogance to a light-hearted discussion of democracy is beyond me, but if that's what you want, go for it. I'm certainly not going to stop you. I just got home and had to respond to some of the stuff from earlier on, back when I thought the original theme of the thread the response to, you know, what was quoted in the opening post.

 

Edit: And looking back, that seems to have been your impression, too, at least during your first reply to the thread.

[Cantousent]

How much time do you want to take spitting vitriol on rabid flag wavers? Self love is not so great a sin as self loathing. If folks want to think they're the best in the world, let 'em. Furthermore, some Americans think they're the best for no reason other than where they were born? Some of the most liberal citizens in our country hold to the same sort of rubbish. For instance, tom fools who refer to the space between New York and California as "fly-over country." Some Europeans think they're best because, after all, they're more cultured. :Eldar's shaking his head with a bemused smile icon: Some Chinese believe their best because they're civilization is "ancient."

 

So, I see a natural progression from the very narrow topic of bashing flag wavers to a broader discussion of America and democracy.

[Reveilled]

1. The judiciary is very important, as the third pillar of the trinity, with Executive and Legislative pillars. It interprets the laws, so it needs to have both erudition and rectitude.

 

I'm not saying that the Judiciary isn't important, just that it can take any form that doesn't directly interfere with the principle of the first two parts. Also, I'd point out that not every political system works on the trinity system the US does. Even look at the British system, which is basically a government entirely comprised of a legislature, with an executive branch of extremely limited to no power, and a judiciary that has very little part in actual government.

 

2. I'm not sure I follow the intricacies of your upper house: it sounds like it might not be prgamatic (how many members, for a start: you do realise how difficult it would be to find people who are at once able to deal with the public service, the "apparatchiks", and yet this "career politician" will need to be unallied with any political party: sounds good in theory, but I wouldn't think it would float IRL). Also, the party allegiance system is, among other things, just a clumsy way to prevent personal bias entering the political arena (too strongly).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would have the same number of members as the present representative chamber of whatever state the new system was being imposed on. So it would have the same number of members as the House of Commons, or the House of Representatives, and so on. And no, to be honest, I don't see the difficulty. Perhaps you could explain it to me? As to the party allegiance system removing personal bias, that's my point exactly. You remove personal bias from the arena, but just replace it with party bias. What does an MP do when his constituents are clearly opposed to a piece of legislation, but the whips of the political party he is affiliated with are threatening him with expulsion from the party if he votes against it? If he's been voted in as the Labour MP for Glasgow North, is his chief duty to Labour or to Glasgow North? Look at the Iraq war. It was abundantly clear that the majority of the British people were opposed to the war, and yet despite the fact that we are meant to be a democracy, the people clearly were not in power when the MPs chose to ignore the people who elected them and vote how their political parties told them. The only solution I can see to this problem is one in which there is a legislative chamber with no political parties.

[Commissar]

How much time do you want to take spitting vitriol on rabid flag wavers?  Self love is not so great a sin as self loathing.  If folks want to think they're the best in the world, let 'em.  Furthermore, some Americans think they're the best for no reason other than where they were born?  Some of the most liberal citizens in our country hold to the same sort of rubbish.  For instance, tom fools who refer to the space between New York and California as "fly-over country."  Some Europeans think they're best because, after all, they're more cultured.  :Eldar's shaking his head with a bemused smile icon:  Some Chinese believe their best because they're civilization is "ancient."

 

So, I see a natural progression from the very narrow topic of bashing flag wavers to a broader discussion of America and democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving aside the fact that everything between the coasts is indeed flyover country, I'm not entirely sure your point stands. I'm not saying people can't believe their country/region/whatever is the best; it's a natural thing to do. I wouldn't willingly live anywhere else. But that doesn't mean I have to make a point of shouting it from the rooftops every chance I get. I have little doubt the Dutch view Dutchland as the best place to call home, but you never hear Dutchy McDutcherson, Prime Minister of Dutchland, giving a speech 'bout how the rest of the world ought to follow Dutchland's example, while that really has been a constant theme from every administration I can remember.

 

Why is it that we have to get everybody to agree with us? Why don't we let our deeds speak for themselves, rather than telling anyone who'll listen, and most that won't? You can't argue that's the nature of democracy, I don't think.