Iraqi Elections

[Insidious Rex]

[

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Here again - sarcasm - trying to make people forget about the cdiscussion. Here let me help you out with what my statement said. You seem to have forgot the conversation. You had mentioned "abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage" - those are the ISSUES I was referring to.

And those are the VERY issues among others that those right wing moralists said this vote was all about!! That’s what Im saying! They said it was a moral and religious revolution over the family and gays and abortion. They said it with their OWN mouths! You wanted examples of what I was talking about. I gave you some. Its irrelevant (AS I pointed out when I first gave them) that some NON religious people voted along the same lines. The point is that these “sheiks” were NOT preaching about the importance of secularism in government as the Iraqi ones are but were INSTEAD preaching the exact OPPOSITE! I find I continue to explain the same thing over and over…

You might want to go to the doctor - you seem to be suffering from alzheimers - or you just can't concentrate very well. Sorry - I just can't do sarcasm as good as you. I really wish I could. You're my idol you know

I know. And yes you need to work on that a bit. Theres a subtle art you know. I notice you try it with everyone else but it usually comes off as over the top or juvenile. Ill be happy to give you some tips if you like. ;D

Ahh yes - another put down. YOu are good at this aren't you? I was wondering - did you go to college for this actually?

see a perfect example of what I said above. The college thing just doesn’t work here. Perhaps exposing me as equally a wind bag would have scored more points for you. Since we both tend to be.

By your statements and your constant whining about the election. I'd say you're not really over it.

lemme know when you find one comment I have made since the election countering the outcome of the election results. Then you can talk smack about me not being over the election and such. Until then youll just have to deal directly with the points of people who don’t agree with the administration on every conceivable issue without resorting to the cop out approach of “oh get over it”.

actually it has more to do with the fact that you feell he should listen to the losing party as to what he should do - than the people voted for him.

I find it humorous that this discussion which was not originally about Bush at all has been turned that way by your assumptions regarding my comments. Originally this was about those right wingers who touted the election results as a religious and moral revolution. Youll notice I don’t think Bush is a “sheik”. Robertson and Fallwell et al are the sheiks of our country. So... once again... you’ve changed focus on the original point.

But you may want to look at your post as an example of someone who can't argue the facts.

no I just look at my post as an example of someone who needs to continually remind someone else of the original point despite their attempts to avoid it.

But then again - I know - it's difficult to hear me I'm just a loud mouth bore that praddles on and just post big long wind bags.

well we all have our weaknesses.

You're post was hilarious. Talk abotu ironic or is that hypocritical. Sorry - just trying to find the right word here to describe your post.

how about “in kind”.

[Insidious Rex]

Woops almost forgot this one.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I suppose that's okay because of course you support your own opinions. You just don't like people "praddling" when it's about something you don't agree with.

no you can praddle on all you want about things I don’t agree with and things I don’t care about. You certainly do it all the time… but if yer gonna praddle on about liberals not believing in the first amendment and liberals thinking bush lost the election then don’t use ME as your means of talking on those issues. Maybe perhaps talk about what I actually have SAID. Or else bring up that other stuff on your own. Simple right? Ill even be more specific as to what I mean k? You will reply to a comment someone makes with a few sentences sometimes worthwhile sometimes wrong. but THEN youll say “And you liberals think that…” or “And liberals always say…” and you rush off on a tangent about LIBERALISM (and often times fantasy based) and attempt to pin it on the person you are talking to. Most people (I have noted) take at least some offense when you do that. Then if they have the audacity to point this out you immediately get into a sparring match with them which quickly escalates well beyond the original intent of what they were saying. Case in point…

Also - another thing - you can stop twisting my words - where did I say that you said "religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote"? It's YOU who ACTUALLY enjoys putting words in someone's mouth (namely mine). This is what I had said....

what Jersey said he said:

Just because you may disagree with the people who voted for Bush, does not mean they didn't have a right to vote for the person who held their beliefs.

so… let me see if I have this straight. You reply to me that just because I disagree with people doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to vote for the person that held their beliefs and this ISNT the same as essentially saying they shouldn’t be allowed to vote? The only minor difference I see is that you are assuming Im ok with them voting for the guys I like but they cant vote for the guys they like? Isn’t that the same result? A restriction of liberty in their right to self appointed representation which I NEVER advocated? I don’t see how your distinction above AT ALL means im putting words in your mouth. Explain to me how that works exactly. if I acknowledge that they have the right TO VOTE then I am also acknowledging that they have the right to vote for the people they like.

I italicized the part you obviously were too busy to read.

on the contrary. I read everything quite carefully…

There is NOTHIUNG wrong with religious people stating their opinion on these things - nor actually getting their way with these things. The will of the people will decide these things through Congress - and those people include the religious of America.

do you understand the difference between stating you are IN FAVOR of something or AGAINST something and interpreting election results as a mandate for YOUR beliefs and to go even further and interpret these results as a sign that the American people want a “religious revolution” and that your morals reign supreme? If you don’t let me know…

Furthermore… do you understand the difference between pointing out an undeniable ironic point and saying religious people shouldn’t be allowed to vote “for the person who held their beliefs”? Once again if you don’t…. just let me know…

What happened there?

they were taken over by the Taliban which was friendly to terrorists.

[Janny]

The turnout at these elections is roughly 60%. The official turnout in the 2001 UK General Election was...

59.4%

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Janny

The turnout at these elections is roughly 60%. The official turnout in the 2001 UK General Election was...

apathy stinks

[jerseydevil]

IR I noticed you posted - but I'm not even going to waste my time reading your crap here. It's probably the same old **** - just different words. I have better things to do a the moment. Anyway - this thread is about the IRAQI elections - not the US ones. It's also not about what you think of me - or a demonstration of how many names you can call me.

[Elemmírë]

I didn't read all that many names, JD.

All the same, I wish you two would stop attacking each other.

What reasons are there to expect that democracy in itself will even work (in the long run) in Iraq?

[jerseydevil]

What reasons are there to expect that democracy in itself will even work (in the long run) in Iraq?

What reasons were there to believe that democracy in our country would have even have worked? When we set up our democracy - we were the first ones to attempt such a thing. There are no guarantees - just like there were no guarantees that we would win the revolution or that we would succeed as a country, there were no guarantees that we would defeat nazi germany or japan, or that we would overcome the threat of the soviet union. There is one guarantee though - there is no more surefire way toward failure than giving up.

As I said in the birthday thread - today we planted a seed - hopefully it will grow - but it will only grow if we stand by it's side and help it along.

If we had powerful naysayers you hear today during 1776 - like Kennedy and others - the US would still be a a british colony. It took roughly 6 years (1775 - 1781) to fight the revolution - to win our freedom. It was then not even until 1787 that we even sat down to develop a Constitution and the government we have today. The Iraqis are trying to go from a brutal dictator to a democracy in less than 3 years.

Our fight for independence and freedom was not easy - there were a lot of sacrifices made. No one should expect the road to democracy for the Iraqis to be easy - especially with having terrorists in their country who do not want democracy to flourish in the middle east. What the iraqis did yesterday by going to the polls was very similar to what our founding fathers did when they put their signatures on the declaration of independence. They knew perfectly well that if the revolution failed - they would be hanged for treason. As Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately". The founding fathers and the many men and women who fought in our revolution put their life on the line for a better life and for justice and freedom - just like the iraqis did yesterday. They did not cower down and put their hands in their pockets after voting - they celebrated and danced - they stuck the inked stained finger in the air in defiance of the terrorst threats. How many Americans today or Birtish or French would make these same sacrifices today just to vote The Iraqis stared down the terrorists and showed their lust for freedom by just taking the steps necessary to go to the polling booths - knowing that they could be shot and killed at any moment.

It is the fact that they willingly put their life in their hands to do something that too much of the western world takes for granted - they voted - that is why I have faith that they will ultimately succeed as a democracy. of course a lot will be determined by what their constitution looks like and whether it makes sure that no one person ot group can wrest power again. This is only the first step toward democracy and is only the development of a temporary government. During 2005 they have to write their constitution and then in December they are scheduled to vote again for the final government officials.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What reasons were there to believe that democracy in our country would have even have worked? When we set up our democracy - we were the first ones to attempt such a thing.

Come now, JD. You know that's not true.

We may have been the first in recent history to attempt such a thing, but don't forget about Greece and Rome. The fact remains that our government (assuming my history teachers weren't lying ) was based primarily on ideas from the Enlightenment, and not entirely foreign to ideas and philosophy that had existed before.

Iraq and most if not all of the Middle East, however, never went through a time period with such a philosophy. So where is the foundation for democracy in the region?

And secondly, we were lucky in our first presidents. Without someone like Washington, who can say what would have happened? As far as I know, he was incredibly widely supported in our country. Whoever has won/will win ( ) the Iraqi election, however, will likely not have such support. There are so many factions and different people running that I don't see even a majority of the population being happy.

I also believe that the flaws of democracy (primarily the suppression of the minority by the majority... it's somewhere in the Federalist Papers... ) will likely be more prominent and noticeable in Iraq than in our own country.

I could be, and hopefully am, wrong though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Come now, JD. You know that's not true.

We may have been the first in recent history to attempt such a thing, but don't forget about Greece and Rome. The fact remains that our government (assuming my history teachers weren't lying ) was based primarily on ideas from the Enlightenment, and not entirely foreign to ideas and philosophy that had existed before.

Greece and rome were limited democracies and also - as for the ideas and philosophy of the time - writing ideas down on paper isn't the same thing as actually making them work in real life. So it is true. The founding fathers did take a lot for greece, rome - as well as authors during the enlightment age - but we were the first to actually put it all in practice in roughly 1700 years. There was NO ONE to show us or guide us in the development of our country or democracy. There was no working example to draw from.

Iraq and most if not all of the Middle East, however, never went through a time period with such a philosophy. So where is the foundation for democracy in the region?

They don't need a foundation of democracy in the region to learn from others. Where was the WORKING example of democracy for the US to draw from?

And secondly, we were lucky in our first presidents. Without someone like Washington, who can say what would have happened? As far as I know, he was incredibly widely supported in our country. Whoever has won/will win ( ) the Iraqi election, however, will likely not have such support. There are so many factions and different people running that I don't see even a majority of the population being happy.

There are many people in iraq who are widely supported - contrary to popular opinion - washington did not get 100% of the vote. Washington was important in American history - without him - we would not have had an established copuntry - because he was not after power. If Lee had displaced Wahsington as he wanted during the revolution - we would have ended up with a dictator. Nothing is guaranteed - all you have to look at is the outrageous bloodshed that occurred during the French Revolution.

I also believe that the flaws of democracy (primarily the suppression of the minority by the majority... it's somewhere in the Federalist Papers... ) will likely be more prominent and noticeable in Iraq than in our own country.

Democracy is where the people rule - however - the minority are protected by many other things. Who would you have determining the laws of the land? the minority? If you had that then you would have to accept the will of the KKK and naziism and all that. Also - this is one of the reasons why we don't have a pure democracy - we have a democratic republic - with state representation. I woul dhave to see if what you mention though is in the federalist papers - it sounds more like it would be in the anti-federalist papers.

[edit]btw - Rome wasn't a democracy - it was a republic [/edit]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

IR I noticed you posted - but I'm not even going to waste my time reading your crap here. It's probably the same old **** - just different words. I have better things to do a the moment. Anyway - this thread is about the IRAQI elections - not the US ones. It's also not about what you think of me - or a demonstration of how many names you can call me.

well I dont think I called you very many names at all in that last post but I accept your truce so we can get back to the important subject at hand. And because Elemmire asked nicely for us to shut up and shes a sweetie.

So what Im wondering is I heard that something like 99% of the Kurds voted for independence on their ballots. what will happen with them? can they do that? or was that just a symbolic gesture? also what happens with the Suni population that couldnt vote or that were too intimidated to vote because of isnurgent threats. I hear in one city insurgants actually called up the police and threatened them and their family and the WHOLE police department resigned... AND the governor of the region had his home fire bombed and went into exhile. So of course the citzens of the region were terrified of voting and didnt. So the Suni representation in this election will undoubtedly be underrepresentative. Will this be worked out some how such that they get a minimum number of representatives anyway? so they arent completely disinfranchised by the process? what about capping the representation for each group by its population percentage? a sloppy way of doing it no doubt since lines are certainly not drawn that clearly over there. but what else could be done?

[EarthBound]

=Mercutio
EDIT: It's interesting, since they don't have records and ids and that sort of stuff to the level of other developed countries to control voting, they stain the tip of your index finger when you vote.

I think that was done to prevent voter fraud, right JD?

I hope it doesn’t lead to sliced fingers or some other gross revenge by those murdering-thugs.

Anyway, HORRAY for the Iraqi voters; that display of courage was an excellent baby-step towards independence and freedom.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

I think that was done to prevent voter fraud, right JD?

It was - because they didn't actually have to register I think, but it might have been to just make sure that no oneeven attempted to vote twice. So they just had to bring two forms of id to prove that they were of legal age (18) and then they had their fingers dipped.

I think they also dipped the fingers here. I know the Iraqi Ambassador to the US came on a ness program with his finger stained too. They did do the same thing during the Afganistan election - and they ran into problems at one place where the ink was able to come off.

I hope it doesn’t lead to sliced fingers or some other gross revenge by those murdering-thugs.

I thought about that too because it lasts for 3 - 5 days. If you're walking around with a blue ink stain on your finger - it's a bit hard to hide that you voted.

Anyway, HORRAY for the Iraqi voters; that display of courage was an excellent baby-step towards independence and freedom.

I agree. So many people say that democracy can't work in the middle east - but yet it's never been really given a try - other than with Turkey. Iraq before Hussein was one of the most advanced western countries in the middle east. I think if they truly want freedom - they will make democracy suceed.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Come now, JD. You know that's not true.

We may have been the first in recent history to attempt such a thing, but don't forget about Greece and Rome. The fact remains that our government (assuming my history teachers weren't lying ) was based primarily on ideas from the Enlightenment, and not entirely foreign to ideas and philosophy that had existed before.

and of course we are forgetting that Iceland has the oldest continual democratic parliament in the world, still in place, without any break, today

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

and of course we are forgetting that Iceland has the oldest continual democratic parliament in the world, still in place, without any break, today

The US is the oldest democacy in the world today - no matter what you would like to say.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

They don't need a foundation of democracy in the region to learn from others. Where was the WORKING example of democracy for the US to draw from?

I don't think a WORKING example is quite the same as a foundation. What I'm saying is that the US and Europe had gone through a philosophical era where the principles necessary for democracy became embedded in our societies. The same thing has not happened in Iraq, at least not natively. Whether a foreign born idea can thrive there, where history has been against it for so long, is yet to be seen. Hopefully your optimism will be warranted.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Democracy is where the people rule - however - the minority are protected by many other things. Who would you have determining the laws of the land? the minority? If you had that then you would have to accept the will of the KKK and naziism and all that. Also - this is one of the reasons why we don't have a pure democracy - we have a democratic republic - with state representation. I woul dhave to see if what you mention though is in the federalist papers - it sounds more like it would be in the anti-federalist papers.

Gosh. I can't believe I'm reading through some of the Federalists Papers again. I pretty sure it's in Federalist 51, you can find the whole text here if you're interested. Anyway, no. I did not say I wanted the minority to have control. In fact, I don't think I've stated what type of government I support (and I'd rather not fight, so I'm not going to anytime soon ) And usually they are protected, I suppose (though I would like to know what your "many other things" are), but not always and not completely.

I could easily claim that democracy failed in the US four (five now, I suppose) years ago. At the moment, I can just as easily say that not much more than 50% or 60% of our population is being accurately represented. But the second, at least, is inherent in democracy, I think. As is also written in the Federalist Papers , we're always going to disagree; that's part of human nature.

I don't think that such a thing, at the moment at least, is overly dangerous in the US. I don't like Bush, but I don't think the world is going to end because he was reelected. Even if he was foolish enough to go declare war on the rest of the world - which I doubt - there are enough safegaurds to prevent him, I think. We've had 200 years to work things out.

Like you said yourself: "The Iraqis are trying to go from a brutal dictator to a democracy in less than 3 years." I don't think that they have the same margin of error at the moment than we do. As a result, I am doubtful of the chances that this will work. Democracy is not unfallable, and I am pessemistic.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

[edit]btw - Rome wasn't a democracy - it was a republic [/edit]

True. But if you're going to say that, you might as well say that the US is not a democracy, but rather a combination of the ideas of both democracy and the republic. And wait... you did admit as much. My point stands, these types of governments are not exactly a new phenomonum (though they do seem to be primarily if not entirely European ideas, at least originally). And as Chrys mentioned, Iceland. Though all of this is rather unrelated to the topic.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well I dont think I called you very many names at all in that last post but I accept your truce so we can get back to the important subject at hand. And because Elemmire asked nicely for us to shut up and shes a sweetie.

A sweetie am I? Well, thanks.

So are we all friends again?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I don't think a WORKING example is quite the same as a foundation. What I'm saying is that the US and Europe had gone through a philosophical era where the principles necessary for democracy became embedded in our societies. The same thing has not happened in Iraq, at least not natively. Whether a foreign born idea can thrive there, where history has been against it for so long, is yet to be seen. Hopefully your optimism will be warranted.

Without a feeling that something can be obtained (optimism) - then why try it? Do you think the foundign fathers really thought america was going to survive or that they were even going to win the revolution?

As for Europe - europe took a long time to become democracies. The French revolution for all purposes was a failure - it did not have freedom after it. It brought about Napolean. The US however never went into a dictatorship or anything.

[Gosh. I can't believe I'm reading through some of the Federalists Papers again. I pretty sure it's in Federalist 51, you can find the whole text here if you're interested. Anyway, no. I did not say I wanted the minority to have control. In fact, I don't think I've stated what type of government I support (and I'd rather not fight, so I'm not going to anytime soon ) And usually they are protected, I suppose (though I would like to know what your "many other things" are), but not always and not completely.

I have both the fereralist and the anit-federalist papers - I also know where the sites are to read them online. I have many posts on this board where I quote them and put links to them.

I could easily claim that democracy failed in the US four (five now, I suppose) years ago. At the moment, I can just as easily say that not much more than 50% or 60% of our population is being accurately represented. But the second, at least, is inherent in democracy, I think. As is also written in the Federalist Papers , we're always going to disagree; that's part of human nature.

How did democracy fail in the US? SArte you referring to Bush not winning the popular vote? If so - then you are incorrect. It is the STATWES who elect the president - not the national population. I vote in NJ, you vote in NY - we tell our state who we wish to vote for. Since you are familiar with the federalist papers - I'm sure I don't have to explain the way our government works - or the election process.

I don't think that such a thing, at the moment at least, is overly dangerous in the US. I don't like Bush, but I don't think the world is going to end because he was reelected. Even if he was foolish enough to go declare war on the rest of the world - which I doubt - there are enough safegaurds to prevent him, I think. We've had 200 years to work things out.

The thing we have is the Constitution - along with the checks and balances that were put in place to prevent abuse of power. As an example - Clinton had signed into the law the "Line Item Veto" whihc would have allowed the president to sign into law a part of bill - while vetoing other parts. The supreme court ruled- I believe correctly - that this put too much power into the president in determining laws. Congress makes the laws - the president can either sign the whole thing - or veto the whole thing.

Like you said yourself: "The Iraqis are trying to go from a brutal dictator to a democracy in less than 3 years." I don't think that they have the same margin of error at the moment than we do. As a result, I am doubtful of the chances that this will work. Democracy is not unfallable, and I am pessemistic.

Why? It's very doable - with help. Look at where Germany went from. japan never had a democracy before the US put it in place - they had an emporer who was felt to be god. Look at where Japan is today. To say that because there is no history of democracy in the Middle east -= therefore it will not work - I find to be very arrogant (and it's not just you - it's also politicians who think the middle east can't handle democracy).

True. But if you're going to say that, you might as well say that the US is not a democracy, but rather a combination of the ideas of both democracy and the republic. And wait... you did admit as much. My point stands, these types of governments are not exactly a new phenomonum (though they do seem to be primarily if not entirely European ideas, at least originally). And as Chrys mentioned, Iceland. Though all of this is rather unrelated to the topic.

I've always said the US is a democratic Republic. I have stated as much many times here. In my close to 10,000 posts there are numerous posts where I give lessons in the history and government of the US. All you have to do is look for them.

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, we were lucky in our respective revolutions (to use the term a bit loosely in the case of Canada). The Russians got rid of the tsars, and got stuck with Stalin.

Iraq has pretty much been stuck with one dictator after another (since the fall of Sumarian and Babylonian civilizations)... until now.

It really does seem like the nation as a whole have the will to make this work, even though there are people that will try to disrupt the process.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Iraq has pretty much been stuck with one dictator after another (since the fall of Sumarian and Babylonian civilizations)... until now.

well I wouldnt say that exactly. Remember Iraq is the true cradle of civilization and Bagdad itself was the center of world trade and enlightenment during what we refer to as the dark ages when our European ancestors were still a collection of wild tribes struggling with each other. the arabic "golden age" was like the 8th century I believe. The center of the world at that time was Bagdad and people came from far and wide to take in its magnificent gardens and beautiful architecture and take advantage of the learning culture that had developed there for hundreds of years. Very few moments in history were as tragic as the burning of Baghdad by the Monguls in the 13th century. Countless reams of written knowledge and art and fables lost in flames over night...

Anyway... yeah the people of that region have been on the bad end of some lousy deals the past few hundred years maybe but for hundreds and hundreds of years this land was the height of civilization in a way that very few places have since matched if any. There is an ancient greatness in the blood and the soil of Iraq. Its been burried and tainted by the wages of repetitive crusades and the suffication of colonialism more so then by endless dictatorship in my opinion.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for Europe - europe took a long time to become democracies. The French revolution for all purposes was a failure - it did not have freedom after it. It brought about Napolean.

JD... how does pointing out the trouble that Europe had with becoming democratic support your claim that Iraq will likely succeed?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I have both the fereralist and the anit-federalist papers - I also know where the sites are to read them online. I have many posts on this board where I quote them and put links to them.

Sorry to offend you, JD. I posted that for anyone who was interested, not just you.

Also, I find it easier to just click on a link than to find and type in an address or to hunt down and rummage through a book... That could just be laziness and disorganisation, though...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

To say that because there is no history of democracy in the Middle east -= therefore it will not work - I find to be very arrogant (and it's not just you - it's also politicians who think the middle east can't handle democracy).

To me, it's arrogance to believe that because the system of government we have in this country, based on ideas and values that we ourselves have developed over hundreds of years, is inherently the best idea and will therefore work everywhere.

I am not claiming that the Iraqis aren't smart enough to handling democracy. I am simply in doubt of democracy itself (and no, I am not a communist. ).

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How did democracy fail in the US? SArte you referring to Bush not winning the popular vote? If so - then you are incorrect. It is the STATWES who elect the president - not the national population. I vote in NJ, you vote in NY - we tell our state who we wish to vote for. Since you are familiar with the federalist papers - I'm sure I don't have to explain the way our government works - or the election process.

Which is my point exactly. To me it is a failure of democracy when the choice of the people isn't elected due to the convoluted nature of our election process. I know the advantages of the electoral college, and I am personally of the opinion that the whole thing needs to be thrown out.

And even the fact that he won the electoral votes is disputed.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I've always said the US is a democratic Republic. I have stated as much many times here. In my close to 10,000 posts there are numerous posts where I give lessons in the history and government of the US. All you have to do is look for them.

I know you said it. I looked back and than said you said it. I was commenting on your statement which discounted Rome because it was not a democracy.

I wish you wouldn't take my comments the wrong way, JD. I know you have a greater knowledge of politics and history than I. I simply disagree with you on points, though I respect and admire both you and your opinions. I'm tired and I don't feel like fighting. Good night.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I could easily claim that democracy failed in the US four (five now, I suppose) years ago. At the moment, I can just as easily say that not much more than 50% or 60% of our population is being accurately represented.

Is this in reference to the 2000 election?

I remember that Bush won Florida two of the three counts completed and was on his way to winning the third before the Supreme Court said, "Enough already". I take issue that our government is a "broken" entity. (Not your words, just my analysis of your stance)

Funny how it took the state of Washington to complete three recounts before the Democratic Governor-ness had enough votes to win. That stuff bothers me no matter which party does it. I mean, how is anyone to feel good about that except the party that wins?!?

No one can feel good about recounts that have possibly biased-counters redefining the votes. We need excellent voting machines that can be "checked" and "confirmed" on the counting. Standardized nationally; just so we can put this finger-pointing to rest after close elections.

Remember JFK . . . Kennedy, lost the popular vote to Nixon, but won the electoral college . . . I don't recall there being such a big hullabaloo (it’s a word BoP! lol) with everyone going on and on and on about how the electoral college is failing us; concerning that election.

I HATE all the quibbling and knee-biting that goes on when someone’s' party looses. (Getting off topic, sorry)

IN FACT: I think it would be a good idea for Iraq to have an electoral college to help represent some of the factions that have a lesser population, but need adequate representation.

I also think they need a new flag to UNITE under...just a thought.