| Author |
Message |
Ed
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:
NoEd |
|
|
What is going on with your president and his good ol boys?
Libby was handed an indictment and resigned.
Karl Rove under investigation.
Tom DeLay under investigation.
One guy that I think is a lunatic is Howard Dean. He claims that your
president and his friends are all part of the most corrupt administration in
the history of the White House.
Is he right? It's starting to look that way. It's getting exciting.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1359263.html
"Apparently, the Republican Party's culture of corruption in Washington is
keeping Andrew Card too busy to come to Milwaukee," said Democratic National
Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera in a press release issued Wednesday
evening."
Here comes Hillary. Will the next Prez be a democrat and a woman?
Last night on the O'Rielly Factor the guest was Susan Estrich. She wrote a
book called "The Case for Hillary Clinton". This was a weird interview. Fox
is pro republican and doesn't try to hide it. Just the same, O'Reilly asked
Estrich several questions about Hillary and where she stood on certain
issues. Estrich couldn't or wouldn't answer any of them. What's up with
that, she wrote the book.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Wilkinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Herb wrote:
| Quote: | "David Wilkinson" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djtsv7$gjj$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Don't forget his lady lawyer friend Mrs Miers who pulled out of his
nomination to become a supreme court judge. She had no experience as a
judge and her only qualification for the job was being a cronette of Bush.
Incidentally it is amazing how undemocratic your system of government
actually is. How many of those in power are actually elected by the
people? Supreme Court Judges, who are in office for life and help make
the laws? Rice? Rumsfeld? Rove? Powell? DeLay? Cheney? Countless
officials in the whole administration? Even Bush is doubtful but at
least he stood as a candidate in an election even if no one was too sure
who really won. Do the electors of America have any say in anything
except to pick one of the two rival gangs every four years?
And how many votes did Her Majesty get? When was the last time you voted
for one of the Law Lords?
The Queen is not elected but she has no power and is just a figurehead. |
I would be quite happy to do away with her, the extensive royal family
and her 8 or 10 palaces, a very expensive and totally unnecessary
historical relic.
What Law Lords? Do you mean members of the House of Lords? We never
voted for those but at least they used to be a randomly selected crowd
by accident of birth from long term hereditary aristocrats mainly with a
few life peers thrown in. Blair has corrupted the whole system by
getting rid of the hereditary peers who were independent and replacing
most of them with his cronies and people who make large donations to his
party. This is a disgrace. Most of us would like an elected House of
Lords but Blair is frightened this would rival the House of Commons and
reduce his powers. Did I mention he was a control freak?
| Quote: | Much as I don't like it, Bush won the last election. Nobody questions that.
They certainly questioned it the previous "hanging chad" election. Even |
at the last one he is not voted in directly but by a complex electoral
college system.
| Quote: | Our two systems are really quite alike except that we vote the head of
government and state more directly while you settle for the majority leader
in the House. (That would have been Tom Delay in our case).
Our PM and all his cabinet are elected MPs and can be sacked at the next |
election. None of your officers of state seem to be elected but just
basically cronies of the President. Blair is trying to implement a
similar system here but has not got very far with it.
| Quote: | What choice do you have besides the two rival gangs?
The Liberal Democratic party, The UK Independence Party, The Greens, the |
National Front, various independents and, until the unfortunate demise
of their leader, Screaming Lord Sutch, the Monster Raving Loony party.
Oh, and there is the Respect party with their one MP the famous
Senate-confronting, pro-Iraq, anti-war, George Galloway!
| Quote: |
There was a Victorian saying about house guests at the stately homes of
the period "When he talks of his honour, we lock up the spoons". The
much vaunted American democracy seems more talked about than practised.
We have a saying here in Massachusetts: "The Great and General Court of the
Commonwealth (legislature) is in session and no man's property is safe."
-herb
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wilkinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Don't forget his lady lawyer friend Mrs Miers who pulled out of his
nomination to become a supreme court judge. She had no experience as a
judge and her only qualification for the job was being a cronette of Bush.
Incidentally it is amazing how undemocratic your system of government
actually is. How many of those in power are actually elected by the
people? Supreme Court Judges, who are in office for life and help make
the laws? Rice? Rumsfeld? Rove? Powell? DeLay? Cheney? Countless
officials in the whole administration? Even Bush is doubtful but at
least he stood as a candidate in an election even if no one was too sure
who really won. Do the electors of America have any say in anything
except to pick one of the two rival gangs every four years?
There was a Victorian saying about house guests at the stately homes of
the period "When he talks of his honour, we lock up the spoons". The
much vaunted American democracy seems more talked about than practised.
Ed wrote:
| Quote: | What is going on with your president and his good ol boys?
Libby was handed an indictment and resigned.
Karl Rove under investigation.
Tom DeLay under investigation.
One guy that I think is a lunatic is Howard Dean. He claims that your
president and his friends are all part of the most corrupt administration in
the history of the White House.
Is he right? It's starting to look that way. It's getting exciting.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1359263.html
"Apparently, the Republican Party's culture of corruption in Washington is
keeping Andrew Card too busy to come to Milwaukee," said Democratic National
Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera in a press release issued Wednesday
evening."
Here comes Hillary. Will the next Prez be a democrat and a woman?
Last night on the O'Rielly Factor the guest was Susan Estrich. She wrote a
book called "The Case for Hillary Clinton". This was a weird interview. Fox
is pro republican and doesn't try to hide it. Just the same, O'Reilly asked
Estrich several questions about Hillary and where she stood on certain
issues. Estrich couldn't or wouldn't answer any of them. What's up with
that, she wrote the book.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
I forgot to mention Cheney, I guess he's in trouble too. Will Geaorge make
it to the next election?
"David Wilkinson" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djtsv7$gjj$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Don't forget his lady lawyer friend Mrs Miers who pulled out of his
nomination to become a supreme court judge. She had no experience as a
judge and her only qualification for the job was being a cronette of Bush.
Incidentally it is amazing how undemocratic your system of government
actually is. How many of those in power are actually elected by the
people? Supreme Court Judges, who are in office for life and help make the
laws? Rice? Rumsfeld? Rove? Powell? DeLay? Cheney? Countless officials in
the whole administration? Even Bush is doubtful but at least he stood as a
candidate in an election even if no one was too sure who really won. Do
the electors of America have any say in anything except to pick one of the
two rival gangs every four years?
There was a Victorian saying about house guests at the stately homes of
the period "When he talks of his honour, we lock up the spoons". The much
vaunted American democracy seems more talked about than practised.
Ed wrote:
What is going on with your president and his good ol boys?
Libby was handed an indictment and resigned.
Karl Rove under investigation.
Tom DeLay under investigation.
One guy that I think is a lunatic is Howard Dean. He claims that your
president and his friends are all part of the most corrupt administration
in the history of the White House.
Is he right? It's starting to look that way. It's getting exciting.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1359263.html
"Apparently, the Republican Party's culture of corruption in Washington
is keeping Andrew Card too busy to come to Milwaukee," said Democratic
National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera in a press release issued
Wednesday evening."
Here comes Hillary. Will the next Prez be a democrat and a woman?
Last night on the O'Rielly Factor the guest was Susan Estrich. She wrote
a book called "The Case for Hillary Clinton". This was a weird interview.
Fox is pro republican and doesn't try to hide it. Just the same, O'Reilly
asked Estrich several questions about Hillary and where she stood on
certain issues. Estrich couldn't or wouldn't answer any of them. What's
up with that, she wrote the book. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"David Wilkinson" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djtsv7$gjj$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Don't forget his lady lawyer friend Mrs Miers who pulled out of his
nomination to become a supreme court judge. She had no experience as a
judge and her only qualification for the job was being a cronette of Bush.
Incidentally it is amazing how undemocratic your system of government
actually is. How many of those in power are actually elected by the
people? Supreme Court Judges, who are in office for life and help make
the laws? Rice? Rumsfeld? Rove? Powell? DeLay? Cheney? Countless
officials in the whole administration? Even Bush is doubtful but at
least he stood as a candidate in an election even if no one was too sure
who really won. Do the electors of America have any say in anything
except to pick one of the two rival gangs every four years?
|
And how many votes did Her Majesty get? When was the last time you voted
for one of the Law Lords?
Much as I don't like it, Bush won the last election. Nobody questions that.
Our two systems are really quite alike except that we vote the head of
government and state more directly while you settle for the majority leader
in the House. (That would have been Tom Delay in our case).
What choice do you have besides the two rival gangs?
| Quote: |
There was a Victorian saying about house guests at the stately homes of
the period "When he talks of his honour, we lock up the spoons". The
much vaunted American democracy seems more talked about than practised.
|
We have a saying here in Massachusetts: "The Great and General Court of the
Commonwealth (legislature) is in session and no man's property is safe."
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote
| Quote: | Much as I don't like it, Bush won the last election. Nobody questions
that.
|
Herb, changing his story.
Killfile this asshole, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:50 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"David Wilkinson" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djub22$r27$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
[snip]
| Quote: | And how many votes did Her Majesty get? When was the last time you
voted
for one of the Law Lords?
The Queen is not elected but she has no power and is just a figurehead.
I would be quite happy to do away with her, the extensive royal family
and her 8 or 10 palaces, a very expensive and totally unnecessary
historical relic.
|
Her Majesty is the head of state.
| Quote: |
What Law Lords? Do you mean members of the House of Lords? We never
voted for those but at least they used to be a randomly selected crowd
by accident of birth from long term hereditary aristocrats mainly with a
few life peers thrown in. Blair has corrupted the whole system by
getting rid of the hereditary peers who were independent and replacing
most of them with his cronies and people who make large donations to his
party. This is a disgrace. Most of us would like an elected House of
Lords but Blair is frightened this would rival the House of Commons and
reduce his powers. Did I mention he was a control freak?
|
I'm referring to those members of the House of Lords who serve as your
supreme court. Are you sure you live in England? I think it is touching
that you think hereditary members are "independent." They represenst the
class that rules over you.
| Quote: |
Much as I don't like it, Bush won the last election. Nobody questions
that.
They certainly questioned it the previous "hanging chad" election. Even
at the last one he is not voted in directly but by a complex electoral
college system.
|
Members of the Electoral College are chosen directly by the people (except,
sometimes in Florida).
| Quote: |
Our two systems are really quite alike except that we vote the head of
government and state more directly while you settle for the majority
leader
in the House. (That would have been Tom Delay in our case).
Our PM and all his cabinet are elected MPs and can be sacked at the next
election. None of your officers of state seem to be elected but just
basically cronies of the President. Blair is trying to implement a
similar system here but has not got very far with it.
|
Are we talking about the same England? Just because Blair has to pick his
cronies from among MPs (often from 'rotten bouroughs' where they don't even
live) doesn't make it more democratic. Every US official has to be approved
by an elected Senate.
| Quote: |
What choice do you have besides the two rival gangs?
The Liberal Democratic party, The UK Independence Party, The Greens, the
National Front, various independents and, until the unfortunate demise
of their leader, Screaming Lord Sutch, the Monster Raving Loony party.
Oh, and there is the Respect party with their one MP the famous
Senate-confronting, pro-Iraq, anti-war, George Galloway!\
|
Oh we have fringe parties on the ballot, as well, but as long as both
systems remain winner take all, there will always be only two parties (rival
gangs) that mean anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maurice
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:00 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of the
popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in your
House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to the
farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner because
we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go nuclear!
Mo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wilkinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Maurice wrote:
| Quote: | Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of the
popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in your
House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to the
farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner because
we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go nuclear!
Mo
Mo. How many Senators or Representatives do the Greens have? Probably |
none. In the UK an MP sits for a constituency and there are about 630 of
these covering the country with 70 to 80 thousand electors in each
(rough numbers from memory). For a candidate to win a seat and become an
MP he has to get a majority of the votes cast in a constituency.
The Liberal-Democrats, our third biggest party, won about 60 seats last
election. That's a bit more than a fringe party. The conservatives
(Tories) got about 200 to 220 seats, I am not sure of the exact number.
In the next election the Lib-Dems may take over from the Tories as the
second biggest party. The Tories have spent the last few years trying to
decide who their leader is but the public as a whole has lost what
little interest it once had in this. The Tories should be attacking the
appalling Blair and his disastrous government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"Maurice" <mo_ginsberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130699393.734923.53720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of the
popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in your
House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to the
farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner because
we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go nuclear!
Mo
|
I'm just guessing but I'm going to say Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.
The Greens got nowhere near 5% of the vote. They hoped to get 4% in some
states so they would automatically be on the ballot the next time. AFAIK
they didn't get 4% anywhere.
In a system that you (ought to) know is two party, you didn't defeat Gore,
you elected Bush.
-herb
PS: We have one independent (a socialist, I believe) in the House: Bernie
Sanders of Vermont. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Mo, this guy is an idiot. You should killfile this troll right away.
Don't attempt debating him. He shifts his story in a stupid and very visible
attempt to win.
Don't go there. A warning from someone who has dealt with this asshole for
years until he decided to hide from me using his killfile.
"Herb" <XXX@YYY.COM> wrote in message
news:mXb9f.7550$zb5.7115@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
"Maurice" <mo_ginsberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130699393.734923.53720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of the
popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in your
House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to the
farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner because
we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go nuclear!
Mo
I'm just guessing but I'm going to say Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.
The Greens got nowhere near 5% of the vote. They hoped to get 4% in some
states so they would automatically be on the ballot the next time. AFAIK
they didn't get 4% anywhere.
In a system that you (ought to) know is two party, you didn't defeat Gore,
you elected Bush.
-herb
PS: We have one independent (a socialist, I believe) in the House: Bernie
Sanders of Vermont.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Freeland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:00 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Herb wrote:
| Quote: |
"Maurice" <mo_ginsberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130699393.734923.53720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of
the popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in
your House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to
the farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner
because we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go
nuclear!
Mo
I'm just guessing but I'm going to say Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.
The Greens got nowhere near 5% of the vote.
|
The answer in 2000 was "none". No one got 49%, let alone a majority;
Nader got 2.74%.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm.
| Quote: | They hoped to get 4% in some
states so they would automatically be on the ballot the next time.
In a system that you (ought to) know is two party, you didn't defeat
Gore, you elected Bush.
|
It is not that simple, as you pointed out yourself - in order to
establish a viable party, it is important to have a guaranteed slot on
the ballot.
The Greens have had a modicum of success at the local level. It's hard
to do that without being able to get candidates on the ballot easily.
Many people swapped votes, offering to vote for Nader in "safe" states
in exchange for "meaningful" votes in contested states. Voting for
Nader as such helped the Greens in some states, helped Gore (assuming
the swap was for Gore) in others - hardly the same as saying that a vote
for Nader was a vote to elect Bush.
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-11/11022000Nader2.asp
As this article points out, the 5% target was not to get the Green party
ballot slots, but rather to nationally get federal matching funds.
| Quote: | PS: We have one independent (a socialist, I believe) in the House:
Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
|
Great state, Vermont. You're forgetting one of their Senators -
Jeffords. Of course he never won as an independent - maybe Sanders will
do better when he tries for his seat.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/04/20/jeffords_retirement_sets_up_scramble_for_top_offices/
--
Mark Freeland
nNeEwTs@sonic.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
"Mark Freeland" <nNeEwTs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4365BAA2.6FFC@sonic.net...
| Quote: | Herb wrote:
"Maurice" <mo_ginsberg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130699393.734923.53720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Trivia question. Out of the last four presidential elections, which
candidate and in what year did the winner receive more than 50% of
the popular vote?
David, we do have other political parties? In 2000 the Green Party,
with Ralph Nader as its candidate, received 5-6% of the vote. Under
your system of government, that would mean some representation in
your House of Commons. In the USA it means a one way ticket back to
the farm. Btw, I voted for Ralph in 2000. I felt like a winner
because we, not the Republicans, defeated Gore. Go Green, go
nuclear!
Mo
I'm just guessing but I'm going to say Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.
The Greens got nowhere near 5% of the vote.
The answer in 2000 was "none". No one got 49%, let alone a majority;
Nader got 2.74%.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm.
They hoped to get 4% in some
states so they would automatically be on the ballot the next time.
In a system that you (ought to) know is two party, you didn't defeat
Gore, you elected Bush.
It is not that simple, as you pointed out yourself - in order to
establish a viable party, it is important to have a guaranteed slot on
the ballot.
The Greens have had a modicum of success at the local level. It's hard
to do that without being able to get candidates on the ballot easily.
Many people swapped votes, offering to vote for Nader in "safe" states
in exchange for "meaningful" votes in contested states. Voting for
Nader as such helped the Greens in some states, helped Gore (assuming
the swap was for Gore) in others - hardly the same as saying that a vote
for Nader was a vote to elect Bush.
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-11/11022000Nader2.asp
As this article points out, the 5% target was not to get the Green party
ballot slots, but rather to nationally get federal matching funds.
PS: We have one independent (a socialist, I believe) in the House:
Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Great state, Vermont. You're forgetting one of their Senators -
Jeffords. Of course he never won as an independent - maybe Sanders will
do better when he tries for his seat.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/04/20/jeffords_retirement_sets_up_scramble_for_top_offices/ |
Mark:
It is my understanding that in a winner-take-all system where the winner is
not required to receive a majority, there will always be two parties: the
party in power and the largest opposition party. Voting for a splinter
group does not elect an opposition candidate, it lowers the percent that the
party in power has to receive in order to take the seat or the electors.
In the UK the opposition party varies in some regions. This does not make
the UK a multi-party state, it just makes them a collection of two-party
provinces.
A lot of people preferred Nader to Gore but I seriously doubt that any true
Nader supporter preferred Bush to Gore and I am incredulous that Nader
voters were so opposed to Gore that they thought four years of Bush was a
price worth paying.
If we had proportional representation or a requirement of 50% to win it
might be different. Wishing it is so won't make it happen. The last time a
new party replaced an old party, civil war ensued.
-herb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maurice
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:53 am Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Okay, where do I start:
1) The answer to the trivia question is GW Bush in 2004. As the
winner (keyword) of the election, he garnered 50.7% of the popular
vote. GW Bush in 2000 and WJ Clinton in 1992 and 1996 did not achieve
the distinction of having a majority of the popular vote.
2) I do stand corrected on the Green's popular vote in 2000. They got
2.7%, which still exceeded all expectations. I was confused as in my
state, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, they received greater
than 5%. Still given that they historically have little standing
across the country, they did very well. Also I do take exception to a
comment that they did not upset the election for Gore. Nader received
98,000 votes in Florida. The difference between Bush and Gore in
Florida was only hundreds of votes. I dare to surmise that the vast
majority of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore had Nader not been
the Green candidate, and the election would have ended weeks sooner
with Gore as President. New Hampshire is another state that would have
swing toward Gore.
3) David, some people think that our process of the electoral college
for the presidency is not fair or democratic. But we've been living
with it since we kicked Britain's butt out of the hemisphere. 8^)
There is a question as to whether states can split the electoral
college votes among candidates. Some states want to do that (obviously
for political reasons, not for fairness), and if/ when they do, it will
be tested in the Supreme Court.
Our system of government allows for a President from an opposing party
to head the government, while the House and the Senate could be
controlled by the dominant party. In this situation the Presidency is
pretty weak. That's because the real power resides on Capital Hill.
4) The answer to David's question about how many seats the Greens have
on Capital Hill is zero. Maybe I am totally off base, but I thought if
a party received across the board 3% of the votes, that they would
receive some seats in Parliment.
5) Mark, remember the whole vote swapping fiasco in 2000. The Dems
were panicing, and this was a last ditch effort to derail people from
voting for Nader in key states. I don't think anyone really took this
serious, though it did get a lot of publicity.
No time to get into the whole hanging chad thing.
Mo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkness39
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject:
Re: NoEd |
|
|
Maurice wrote:
| Quote: | Okay, where do I start:
1) The answer to the trivia question is GW Bush in 2004. As the
winner (keyword) of the election, he garnered 50.7% of the popular
vote. GW Bush in 2000 and WJ Clinton in 1992 and 1996 did not achieve
the distinction of having a majority of the popular vote.
|
No, although Bush in 2000 actually had a challenger who won *more* of
the popular vote.
| Quote: |
2) I do stand corrected on the Green's popular vote in 2000. They got
2.7%, which still exceeded all expectations. I was confused as in my
state, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, they received greater
than 5%.
|
Actually, noise aside, Mass always struck me as surprisingly
conservative. Long string of Republican governors, and the social
policies are anything but 'liberal'. Tax burden is actually something
like 20th in the Union.
It gets its liberal reputation in the same way that the rest of the
country views Texas as the arch-conservative state (the state with the
most executions, etc). ie there has to be a 'liberal' state, and the
Kennedy's are in Mass, so it gets designated as such.
What Mass is, is a state where blue collar, Catholic, union voters and
political institutions retain power, whereas in most of the rest of the
US that New Deal political bloc has been consigned to history. Couple
that with a very high level of post secondary and post graduate
education (and post graduates tend to vote Democrat, wherever they are
in the US), and you get the 'people's republic'.
An outsider's impression to be sure.
Still given that they historically have little standing
| Quote: | across the country, they did very well. Also I do take exception to a
comment that they did not upset the election for Gore. Nader received
98,000 votes in Florida. The difference between Bush and Gore in
Florida was only hundreds of votes. I dare to surmise that the vast
majority of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore had Nader not been
the Green candidate, and the election would have ended weeks sooner
with Gore as President. New Hampshire is another state that would have
swing toward Gore.
|
Let's not forget the Patrick Buchanan vote (by mistake).
| Quote: |
3) David, some people think that our process of the electoral college
for the presidency is not fair or democratic. But we've been living
with it since we kicked Britain's butt out of the hemisphere. 8^)
|
Urp. There's this country called *Canada* that has 30 million people
and is in the Western Hemisphere and is still part of the Commonwealth.
Not to mention Jamaica, Grand Cayman, Bermuda, Bahamas etc. None of
which were independent until after WWII. So no, the British were not
ejected from the Western Hemisphere.
It did seal the fate of French North America, though-- the Louisiana
Purchase became inevitable, and the expansion west into the Treaty
regions.
| Quote: | There is a question as to whether states can split the electoral
college votes among candidates. Some states want to do that (obviously
for political reasons, not for fairness), and if/ when they do, it will
be tested in the Supreme Court.
|
As I understand it, the Constitution is silent on this point. The
actual tradition that they vote for the candidate with the plurality is
only 100 years of so old. Maine in particular, I think, has always
split the electoral college vote.
| Quote: |
Our system of government allows for a President from an opposing party
to head the government, while the House and the Senate could be
controlled by the dominant party. In this situation the Presidency is
pretty weak. That's because the real power resides on Capital Hill.
|
Less and less true, I think-- true in the era of Sam Rayburn and LBJ
(as Senate Majority Leader, not President). Contrast Carter
(Democratic House and Senate) to Reagan who was a much stronger and
more successful President. It's not at all clear now which is more
powerful: it seems to wax and wane. What the President has is a much
greater resource of bureaucracy and appointees.
We have entered the age of the executive, imperial presidency.
You could argue the Gingrich era was the peak of Congressional power,
which is likely to wane now that Tom Delay is in such trouble.
| Quote: |
4) The answer to David's question about how many seats the Greens have
on Capital Hill is zero. Maybe I am totally off base, but I thought if
a party received across the board 3% of the votes, that they would
receive some seats in Parliment.
|
No you have to win a consituency (what a Canadian calls a 'riding').
The Moslem People's Party or the Kashmiri Liberation Party are probably
the most likely next 'break thru' parties into the British Parliament
due to concentrations of moslem immigrants in certain cities-- those
votes are deserting Labour over the War in Iraq and over Israel policy.
The next most likely is the far-right British National Party.
There is one socialist party member: a breakaway faction called
'Respect' which elected George Galloway, who famously humiliated your
Senator Norm Coleman (and is being prosecuted over Iraq food-for-oil).
Galloway ran in a heavily moslem part of East London, and defeated a
black Jewish woman who was the MP for Labour (Blair's party) (I'm not
kidding: until Clinton pardoned him, her father was a 40 year refugee
from the Civil Rights era in Alabama, unable to enter the US: then the
96 year old judge wrote a letter to Clinton saying that he had only
imprisoned her father because he was black).
| Quote: |
5) Mark, remember the whole vote swapping fiasco in 2000. The Dems
were panicing, and this was a last ditch effort to derail people from
voting for Nader in key states. I don't think anyone really took this
serious, though it did get a lot of publicity.
|
Bush has set a dangerous precedent. You can win with no majority, and
then govern from the extreme of your own party, rather than from the
centre. I am sure some Democrat, be it Hilary Clinton or another, will
return the favour. Bush has strengthened the hand of the Presidency
remarkably-- the increased role of the central government in the
economy and of the presidency in setting policy may well be his most
lasting legacy.
| Quote: |
No time to get into the whole hanging chad thing.
Mo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in