Europeans To Monitor American Voters 1867
shonagon53 writes "The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy. But since the Florida 2000 fiasco, things have changed.
Europe's famous Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) will now be monitoring the U.S. elections. The institution normally monitors elections in third world countries in transition, and in crisis areas or regions where civil wars have destabilized the political process. In november, the OSCE will be monitoring local and state elections in Kazakhstan, Skopje, Eastern Congo, Ouagadougou and... the United States.
As
the BBC reports, for some Americans this comes as a humiliation; others see it as a necessity, since they have lost trust in the American election process."
US votes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_
http://www.michaellorenzen.com/1876.html
"In 1876 the election for the President of the United States ended in a dispute. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received 184 electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received 165, and 20 electoral votes were uncertain, two different sets of returns being certified. The Electoral Commission was formed to settle the result. The disputed results involved 19 electors from Florida, Louisana, and South Carolina as well as one from Oregon. In those states, the official returns favored the Democrats, but the elections were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters and the Republican dominated electoral commissions were able to throw out enough votes to allow the Republicans to win those states. The result was two sets of returns, one certified by the governor favoring the Republicans and one certified by the state legislatures favoring the Democrats.
In the case of Oregon, the votes were clearly in favor of the Republicans. However, one of the Republican electors was a postmaster. The Democratic governor claimed that the elector was constitutionally disqualified on the grounds of holding a Federal office and therefore substituted a Democratic elector in his place."
fairness (Score:2, Interesting)
What went wrong with the last election.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You're confused. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:US votes? (Score:2, Interesting)
If people don't vote, then they don't vote. Do you really think that George W. Bush and John F. Kerry would be the candidates if say 80% of people that could vote would vote?
Hell no.
The system is the system, it works fine, except for say 1876 and 2000, from 1789 on. The system isn't the cause of low voter turnout or a lack of viable third candidate. Look at the third candidates we've had since 1988 in the US.
Any of them capable of gathering enough support to really be President of the United States from the voters or the members of the Senate and House? One, Ross Perot and in the middle of his run in 1992, he quit, then came back and was still able to get 18.87% of the Popular vote, but no states, what might have been if he'd not quit and then come back?
Re:Oh, I can't help it.. (Score:1, Interesting)
US elections are for the US people to decide, or in extreme cases the US Supreme Court.
Besides, I would rather have a US dictator than a foreign appointed dictator.
Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (Score:2, Interesting)
A previous poster made a good point. All those who were surprised about the way the 2000 election went never really understood our election process in the beginning. Most other countries don't even bother trying to understand WHY we do things the way we do. There are lots of good reasons for keeping the electoral college, for example.
To the rest of the world: The USA is not a democracy. Shocker, huh? We're a democratic republic.
My main point: We'll still run our own elections, our own monitoring groups will still be in charge of spotting irregularities (Dead folks on voter rolls in Chicago, etc), but this is Europe trying to embarass the USA. It's popular right now with such anti-American sentiment worldwide. Don't get your knickers in a twist about this.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Interesting)
?... like the fact that he blames florida republicans for causing all of these problems? insulting. sarcasm is a badly formed opinion. If I remember correctly, Gore was the one who made such a big deal out of florida. So essentially the grandparent was blaming florida republicans for voting.
Re:Huh? "Most stable?" (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO one of the benefits of a democracy is that it introduces (controlled) instability, which forces the government to do its job properly or be overthrown (by the ballot box).
What is the difference between US and "3rd World" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:1, Interesting)
Jim Crow @ wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:This Has Happened Before... (Score:2, Interesting)
In theory it ought to give the US more leverage if/when it tries to encourage countries with rigged elections to admit election discrepancies.
Then again it probably won't as they'll always find an excuse.
"The OSCE is a US shill!"
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Interesting)
(a) have a margin of <1% and
(b) aren't the exception to "winner-take-all" in terms of Electoral College votes
(I think Maine and Nebraska are the only one that proportionally allocate E.C. votes. Might be wrong on that.)
Re:2000 election (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't done the math myself (and I doubt you have either) but generally speaking, the states with the highest population (i.e. the most electoral votes) generally go Democrat. If you apportioned electors based on percentage of the vote in the state, I think it's more than likely that big Republican gains in states like California (45 electors) would offset the smaller states.
If you aportioned electors based on congressional districts, with the winner of the state picking up the bonus 2, I think it would be a Republican landslide.
Just a thought.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
I won't go on and on here, but google for "felon list" for more information about the real reason this is necessary.
Re:uncontrollable laughter (Score:1, Interesting)
If I remember right this link has been provided by slashdot anyway, just to bring it back to attention: Top 25 Censored Stories [projectcensored.org].
Unfortunately, that's not all American affairs anymore. The US government is the mightiest government in the world, it's plain ruthless and dangerous. They don't care about people, they just care about their own power. I don't want to have your DRM, your patent system, your hire & fire and all the other American trash they try to force on Europe too (too protect the interests of the customers of course).
If you elect Bush again, then you really deserve him (poor world, but it's a democracy). Anyway, I think It's good when some observers take a look at that president's fingers at the election, so it at least does not go unnoticed when you switch to a dictature.
Don't get me wrong - I like the US and I have a lot of friends there, but your mighty people are even nastier than ours.
god bless you all and may he force the fallen angels out of our world.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:5, Interesting)
How humiliating (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps it's time to consider an amicable dissolution. Split the country right down the Mississippi River and give everyone ten years to pick a side and move. Or let people vote on what side they want to live and make the division based on a percentage of the population. Authorize some kind of land swap deal so families on one side or the other can trade for property of near equal value. Provide tax credits and subsidies for moving.
If you choose to travel to or stay on...whichever side...you agree to live by the laws and standards on that side of the country.
The right wing side would get all the religious freaks and could ban drugs, porn, abortion, make being gay a crime, reinstate the draft and set up whatever kind of religious symbols they want on government buildings and really enjoy getting the Ashcroft/Cheney/Renquist/Scalia treatment. Paradoxically the same type society our country's founders moved over here to get away from.
The progressive side of the country could live life their own way.
My suggestion is we give the right the side that has the most prisons already built. That way they don't go broke the first couple years.
Hey, just because we started out united it doesn't mean we have to stay that way.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
Great post and good points. However I would disagree that the electoral college is a problem that must be fixed. While not perfect it seems to be the best solution to the American setup. If one person is to be elected it should not be through the opinions of a handful of population centers. There are hundreds of different areas that think completely different but without the mass population. Either an electoral college style system must be used or there should not be a single leader to represent such different views.
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Interesting)
His stupidity, his inane policies, his inability to lead (needed Cheney with him at 9/11 comission hearings, was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks), his religious delusions of granduer ("God speaks through me"), his alienation of the US from the world community, his simplistic black/white view of the world ("You're either with us, or against us"), his occasional grammatical gaffes...
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
New Zealand (Score:4, Interesting)
The world's oldest (and possibly most stable) democracy is New Zealand. This is primarily due to the fact they were the first nation to allow women to vote.
You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:1, Interesting)
yes, but various measures to prevent blacks from voting continued to be in place until 1965.
Re:Two ways this can go (Score:4, Interesting)
Like the OJ trial?
No one will believe a result that's politically damaging to their side. That's the current reality of the US political scene. The two sides are further apart than truth is from fiction.
"Spoiler" Phenomenon revisited (Score:3, Interesting)
The "spoiler" phenomenon isn't ironclad logic to me.
Living in a heavily republican state (guaranteed for Bush), I voted for Ralph Nader, hoping to get the guy the 5% of the popular vote or whatever it is that a party needs to get the matching federal funds, etc, next time around. Otherwise, I would have voted for Bush too.
I know 3 other people who did the exact same thing, and we didn't discuss it beforehand. (One I'd never even met yet.) We can't be the only ones. I'm willing to bet it is a statistically significant subtraction from the "lost votes" of the mainstream candidate.
I personally think it'd be interesting to go back to the original system... Whoever wins is president, whoever comes in second is vice president. Tumultuous? I'm sure, initially. But if the polarization endemic currently subsided, they'd have to cooperate and compromise to get anything done. Ideally (and ostensibly, impractically) we'd be better for it.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure, I don't think it's right paying anybody to vote - but this is exactly why you have anonymous voting. Once they go into the booth - would they care about the cigarettes? Of course not - take them and vote any way you want anyway. So what are you afraid of? That they might be voting against you?
Re:Bah (Score:4, Interesting)
All good points for sure.
But again, it was a different time. Just a little before that slavery was legal. Manifest destiny is another version of colonialism, and every nation who had the means (money, arms, ...etc.) acted anyway it liked provided it did not incur the wrath of other powerful nations (who hate competition mainly).
Now is another time, with international treaties and internation laws, to which the US is a signatory.
I am under no illusion, we live in a practical world, where reality is not in sync with ethics or morals. Countries will break the laws they signed.
However, when you do so, at least do not underestimate the rest of the world, and take them as idiots, and try to preach to them that what you did is 'right', and 'good', and sell it to them as promoting freedom and democracy.
People are not that stupid.
I welcome outside scrutiny... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This Has Happened Before... (Score:3, Interesting)
And what's more is they have absoultely no authority.
Elections are run by state governments. The State Dept. cannot order the states to cooperate with the OSCE. In fact, Florida officials already said the OSCE is free to monitor the elections
What happens when... (Score:2, Interesting)
The USA is a far different animal from Congo or Kazakhstan. There are counties in the USA, many of them, with greater GDP than all OSCE surveyed nations minus the new guy. There's a lot of money, and power, at stake, more than would ever be in the case of Congo, etc.
You know the old adage about security, that any thief with enough a) time and b) resources can prevail against even the toughest security systems. So, if we're going to assume that one of the big players in this upcoming election has an interest in rigging it, we have a serious problem because they control a lot of resources, and have a lot of time.
Humans are always the softest point of penetration or exploit for any supposedly secure system. Compromise the humans in charge of security (and security auditing), and you don't need to worry about protocols, machines or other barriers.
The solution required is much more difficult than hiring a supposed or currently neutral body (composed of individual, corruptible humans). One possibility is transparency, but that comes with almost as many problems as an audit - maybe more. The best solution would be a decentralization of political parties - the more individual political units with autonomous resources, the harder it is to divert resources at any one choke point. But, and apologies for Godwinning my own self, that comes with the problem of minority extremists gaining access to undue political power, as happened in Germany with the Nazi party.
Another solution which could avoid, or at least contain, the Nazi party problem, might be dissolution of the US Federal government and reorganization of individual states into smaller Federations (even monostate Federations). Abe Lincoln was dead set against this, even if the Founders weren't, but these days I don't think there's much chance of a US Federation starting a slave empire. Obviously the problem here is implementation, though.
Re:mistakes (Score:1, Interesting)
You say Democrats decided not to follow the laws. When exactly did they break the law? They may have wanted the deadline extended to accomodate recounts, but why is it invalid to ask a court to consider that? The court rules all the time based on what the legislature *intended* to do, but did not explicitly write into law.
Do you think Bush would not have done the exact same thing if the situation had been the opposite?
Re:mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
Another major advantage of the Electoral college was to keep the choas isolated to Florida. Imagine a close election without the Electoral college. Now you've got all fifty states counting and recounting and getting the various Supreme Courts involved and bogging down the news media until someone with a direct neural tap couldn't keep up with even the summaries of the news.
I will never support a voting system that does not manage to isolate voting irregularities like the electoral college, or better. It only sounds irrelevant because you've never had to live through an election failure of this magnitude, and you can't adequately internalize and imagine it.
(Note that here I am defending the Electoral College as a structural system for collating votes by state; to date I see no reason to elect voters to then cast their vote at the physical college meeting, which may change their mind and thereby disenfranchise an entire district. One person really shouldn't have that power.)
Re:In the end, you have nothing but lies (Score:2, Interesting)
This was arguably the wrong decision and I'm not disputing that. But it's a far cry from the parent post's "paralyzed." And according to the school's principal [naplesnews.com], Bush's demeanor at the time "helped us get through a very difficult day."
The assumption seems to be that had Bush lept into action immediately, something would have gone differently that day. I breathlessly await a description of how.
Why no compulsory vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure there are reasons for not having it, but I cannot think of them.
Re:mistakes (Score:1, Interesting)
And yet it's been this way since this country was founded. Don't believe it? I suggest you Google yourself the search term "Tammany Hall" - or hell, just watch "Gangs of New York" if you'd rather get some entertainment out of it.
Things are better now than they used to be, when nearly every election was completely corrupt in most areas of the country. It wasn't just New York - it was Chicago [ipsn.org] and San Francisco [brasscheck.com] and Boston and pretty much every other large city. There aren't many stories about the rural areas of the country simply because of the lower population density, but I'm sure there was just as much corruption out in the sticks as in the urban areas, it's just that nobody knew about it. There is an old saying in this country, "Vote Early, Vote Often!"
Which is not to say we shouldn't always be looking to improve. But I wonder where these Europeans were in the 1860's or the 1910's or the 1960's or the 1990's. What makes them such experts on running fair and honest elections today, and what puts them in a position to teach us anything? Do you honestly not believe they have an agenda of their own? They obviously do.
Election irregularities and outright fraud were rampant in this country 100 years ago. That fraud still exists but we have come a long way over the years. Are we perfect? No - no country is. But the OSCE isn't what got rid of Tammany Hall and I'm not sure how they're going to help us this time.
The bottom line is, do we need them? No. Can they help us? No. Are they doing this out of their own self-interests? Probably. Does Europe want to continue to alienate itself from America? Sure seems like it.
Note I'm about as anti-Bush as they come, and I do feel he stole the 2000 election (and not just because he lost the popular vote; that's the way our system of government is set up). I'm just saying this is nothing new, and he's certainly not the first President to steal an election (he just found a new way to do it). We need to continue to fix the issues that lead to this sort of thing, but we don't need the Europeans telling us how to do it.
I disagree. (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm in a state full right wing whackos (as I am), I might as well not vote, because vote or no vote, my say is worth exactly CRAP.
Explain to me how that is the best system? How is a system in which the majority does not, in fact rule, even a reasonable democracy?
Re:Why no compulsory vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
In a few more: the determination of a leader for a world power is a great responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable -- an action that one is compelled to do carries less weight than an action which one embarks upon voluntarily, accepting at the outset to not only act in a certain manner, but to accept the consequences of that action. To do something that is meaningful in any sense of the word precludes the idea that the action is determined by the actor, rather than by an external force.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, quite the partisan, "one side fits all" view of reality, huh?
There were lots of irregularities in Florida, including an unconstitutional supreme court intercession in an area that the constitution specifically assigns to the states, and including the erroneous disqualification of 50,000 minority voters. Democrats attempting to get certain votes excluded, Republicans attempting to get others excluded, Democrats trying to get elderly Jewish voters for Buchanan reconsidered, Republicans (successfully) trying to get military votes that did not follow the statutory requirements for overseas voting accepted..
But it's simpler in your world, I guess.
The Coming Legal Challenge (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at a party last night, and being in San Fransisco, it was assumed I was a loyal Kerry supporter. So they invited me to a fundraiser next week for a legal challenge fund. "For every dollar we raise, that's one more dollar we can use in the campaign instead of having to save for the challenge." This was the first I had ever heard of this fund, so I inquired more about it.
To many this fund may come as no surprise. But to a lot of us it's a shocking display of politics at its worst. Active fund raising parties are being held NOW for funds that will almost certainly be used in a challenge! It was made clear to me that a legal challenge WILL be issued if Bush wins the election, and it might even be issued before the polls eve close. Florida is the normal target state, but other states were mentioned as well.
p.s. I am not a Bush supporter. When I explained to the inviters that I was a Libertarian, they didn't care, because they assumed I was going to vote for Kerry anyway. When I explained further that I still wasn't going to vote for him, they started looking at me like something dead the cat drug in.
Re:Why no compulsory vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
The question seems to be, "should the government impose a motivating factor (a fine) to encourage people to vote?" I argue that it should not, for two reasons: (1) a belief that the role of government should be to promote liberty, not to constrain it. The philosophical foundations of the United States of America lie in the promotion of the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rather than the promotion of nationalist sentiment. The freedom to opt out of deciding the government is actually a subset of a larger freedom: the freedom to determine one's own ends and means, and to actualize them as one sees fit.
(2) Although the state-citizen contract is a useful model, it does not exist, and I did not willingly enter into any agreement with my government. I may, out of convinience, take advantage of some of the services offered, and I may also pay my taxes and not break the law for similar reasons. However, my ability to protest against that government, or even to not participate at all, is left to my discretion. While there may be benefit to high voter turnout, it is outweighed by the benefit of freedom-maximization.
Re:Bull-pucky. (Score:2, Interesting)
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.
And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.
Private schools have less accountability
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Say DC has 10,000 students at 12k [nationalreview.com] is $120,000,000 1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
Instant Runoff Voting System (Score:4, Interesting)
deer in headlights (Score:3, Interesting)
And keep holding your breath. That may help. Are you suggesting that it's not a problem when the CIC freezes when informed of an attack? Somehow I don't think I'd hear that argument if the Other Candidate had been in office.
The CIC is supposed to lead, even when his underlings don't tell him what to do.
Re:mistakes (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, you should!
They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham
Yes, it is!
we're incapable of being democratic.
Yes, you are!
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
A fair election might also be more likely to occur once GWB's brother is no longer mayor of Florida.
A vote in Florida is worth 2 for Bush.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you'll find the major issue in Florida was the gerrymandering that GWB's brother, Jeb and his cronies perpetrated: namely the mass disenfranchisement of people simply because they belonged to a demographic that typically votes Democrat on the excuse that they were criminals and therefore ineligable. The constitutional aspects aside of not allowing a criminal that's paid their debt to vote: most of those disenfranchised had never had a criminal convction of any kind in their life.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
The US needs someone else to point out where they're fucking up: because it's in your politicians best interests not to. Whether there are too many meatheads who'll stick their fingers in their ears yelling "there's nothing wrong here" whilst their politicians fucks them up the arse isn't something an outsider can fix.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
But it is about hanging chads.
State law in Florida dictates that when a computer can't read a vote it must be viewed by a human to see if there was an attempt at a vote.
It's their law, they invited this problem. Pay no attention to the fact that in Tallahassee had computers on hand to test votes... an almost all white Tallahassee.
The problem also is that all the votes were never counted. It's not about a recount, it's about the first count, which never was finished.
A reporter for Knight Ridder said on C-Span that Bush won on accident, he is the accidental president because not all of Florida law was taken into account.
Anyways, "I think all this talk about legitimacy is way overblown"
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
I see this as an insult to America. They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham and that we're incapable of being democratic.
When you play cards with friends and they cut the deck after you deal, do you consider it an insult?
If you give a friend a ride in your car and they put on their seatbelt, do you consider it an insult?
It would be nice if the policy for all elections would include observers from outside of the area. I don't consider the US election system deeply flawed, but its always good to have safeguards in place.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy.
Well, what a lot of outsiders miss (and what tends to greatly disturb them if they see), is that America is an ideological nation state -- perhaps the only one left in a world of ethno-linguistic entities.
We quote the founding fathers the way the Soviets would quote Lenin or Chinese would quote Mao before they mostly gave up the idea of communism and became more simple Russian and Chinese empires. The reason our British/Scottish enlightenment values have proven more robust than Marxism (intrinsic considerations aside) is that they contain an essential kernel of pragmatism that promotes -- indeed, demands -- ongoing adjustments.
Thus your point about the "practice of democracy only got off the ground in..." is moot. Maxwell's equations form the basis of 20th century physics, both quantum mechanics and relativity. Does the fact that Maxwell himself did not see the implications of his own theory invalidate him as a source? Of course not. The founders and later practitioners of qm and relativity gush over Maxwell's genius and reexamine him again and again to see what other treasures might be lying there.
Similarly, the failure of the founding fathers to recognize the full implications of their rhetoric is not a stain on them. Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful. As with Maxwell, this looks very much like confirmation, rather than refutation.
Re:The problem isn't the electoral colleges (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, Switzerland beats the U.S. hands down with about 700 years of democracy. Not a perfect one, and surely with lots of regularia during its history, which would make it look quite undemocratic today. But this is even so with the U.S. democracy, which had to overcome lots of obstacles and undemocratic sidesteps until it came where it is now.
Best government money can buy! (Score:1, Interesting)
As for the argument that if I don't vote I'm letting someone else decide for me: large donors (i.e., corporate, labor, and other special interest organizations) are already doing that. Last time I looked, organizations can't vote so why should they be allowed to contribute? Only donations (with no limits) by individual PERSONS should be allowed.
As for not trusting the electorate; look at the economic condition of California for the reason why. With the state constituion allowing popular referendum with essentially no veto by the legislature, Californians have voted themselves all kinds of benefits without figuring out how to pay for them. Why not? Folks will almost always accept something for "free". The founders understood this.
Bottom line: a careful balance of power must be maintained between all elements of a democratic society. Things are so out of whack I don't know how/if it can ever be repaired.
Re:of course, the rest of the world isn't any bett (Score:4, Interesting)
Racist? It's not racist, it is another rule, not related to a race whatsoever.
Meanwhile I do prefer our French law, which allows anybody born in France to become French, as you suggest.
Voting machines (Score:1, Interesting)
Then the votes are counted by an independent voting commitee.
Why are you relying on untrustful Diebold machines while counting by hand is much easier?
Damn foreigners! (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn unamerican foreigners!
Our Democracy (tm) is the Best in the World (tm). The System Works (tm), and as the Leader of the Free World (tm), Our President (tm) is Staying the Course (tm) in important matters such as Family Values (tm), a Womans Right Not to Choose (tm), the War on Terror (tm), the March of Democracy in Iraq (tm), and other Pro Life (tm) measures.
I know we have the best democracy. I was told so in grammar school, numerous times, for the first 18 years of my life. Plus the TV says so.
Who are you to question such irrefutable facts, you damn foreigner!
Alas, the above should be funny, but aside from the gratuitious trademark symbols, it is appallingly close to exactly what happens here in America. I remember being spoon fed Amercan political myth, particularly about the founding of the country, until I was ready to vomit it up, year after year after year after year. "Social Studies" in America is one big propoganda fest, with history taught from around 1776 through the civil war -- if you have a smart class that can move through the material quickly -- and the next year you start all over again, back at 1776.
We are told by the media we are the best in everything, all the time. Is it any wonder anyone who hasn't been outside of the country believes this nonsense to be true
American people by and large aren't bad folks, and are generally well meaning (Republican nationalist swagger and Bush's unconscionable warmongering nothwithstanding). But we are all indoctrinated every day with large amounts appallingly bad data, and I'm afraind in the tatters of our democracy you really are still stuck with the Garbabe In, Garbage Out truism, which is why this election is neck and neck despite the behavior of the incumbant government over the past four years.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:of course, the rest of the world isn't any bett (Score:2, Interesting)
Hate? What hate? What for? If the EU was hating the Turks, there would be no more Istambul, just a radioactive desert. Stop using tough words like that if you cannot imagine what they imply.
Like how the European Union not allowing Turkey into the EU because it is not of Christian faith.
Uh? Has it occured to you that EU citizens may wish to share common cultural roots together, that many would appreciate if they could feel like being a EU citizen and no mere members of a mere free trade zone? I personnaly am very much ill at ease with Turkey joining the EU for this reason. I fear there may be too many discrepancies between us, too many reasons not to build anything together.
And if Turkey is in Europe, then why not Russia, Algeria, Mongolia?? Remember Attila? We share something with China, for sure!
And there are Turks who feel this would be foolish too. I met some.
And now, should we Europeans associate with Turkey: of course, peace and prospecrity for all!
Voter Intimidation (Score:3, Interesting)
Take this lovely example of manipulating the democratic process: Jeb Bush is ONCE AGAIN using the same felon-list he did four years ago- the one they hired an outside company to sloppily produce to have the widest range of (mostly african-american, democrat-voting) names match those on the list, so that every T. Jackson (for example) in the state was flagged as a felon. This is intentional voter intimidation and is a BIG problem.
Warning to all US Americans (Score:1, Interesting)
I come from another country. I have a pleasant life and I normally don't care too much what is happening in the US. But this time I have to give you a warning.
I always look at the long term consequences of actions. Dependant on whom you will elect as president this year, the future will look very differently for you. And it will also affect everyone else in the world including me. That's why I warn you.
If you vote for the Republicans (Bush) there will be a war against a lot of countries that will last several decades. To finance your war US taxes will rise dramatically. But that is not my problem, because my country won't take part in that war. The real problem is that the Republicans will hinder the science of stem cells. The effect will be that cures against nearly all deadly diseases will be found much later. In fact it will take longer than your and my lifetime. So we will all die of one of these diseases at one point.
If you vote for the Democrats (Kerry), the war will be much shorter and you won't have to pay taxes for the war all your life. But what's more important is that decisions of your government will be based on science again. Stem cell sciences will get a lot of funding . As a result of this medicines against most deadly diseases will be found during your and my lifetime. We will be able to live a healthier, less stressful and longer life.
So if you vote, remember that it is a decision about your life or death in a few years. Ignore the unimportant arguments that the press presents you, e.g. the hobbies, the family or the past of the candidates. Vote Democrats.
Please spread this mail. Everyone needs to know about the real consequences of voting this year.
Re:OK... (Score:3, Interesting)
No but they can Nuke California...
Yes but that's not what the parent was talking about. He was talking about the ability to project power. Dropping thermonuclear bombs on cities isn't power projection -- it's Armageddon.
And if you want to talk about nuclear weapons then China doesn't rate as a superpower in that regard either. They do not have a large enough number of nuclear delivery vehicles (i.e: ICBMs) that could survive a first strike. In fact their ICBM force is a joke compared to any Western power or Russia. Thus they do not have a true deterrence.
Deterrence is based upon having enough nuclear weapons to completely devastate your enemies if they ever try to take them away from you. The United States and Russia have this ability. The UK and France have it (by virtue of having a hard to kill submarine force -- not by virtue of having thousands of warheads and hundreds of launchers). Israel might have it (not against the big-four but certainly against her Muslim neighbors -- they can't disarm Israel). China, Pakistan and India do not.
Re:rights of convicted persons (Score:4, Interesting)
by the way.. since the US has the largest population of inmates and convicts in the world both by number and by percentage, it shows that a large part of the population does not agree with governemnt policies (eg drugs).
Yes, you dó live in a police state.
No, once you find out, there's nothing you can do about it......