Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Curufin]

Hey, if we get rid of the Electoral College, and implement PR and/or STV, I'll be perfectly happy.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hey, if we get rid of the Electoral College, and implement PR and/or STV, I'll be perfectly happy.

No, you won't.

[Curufin]

Well, no, probably not, but it's a nice thing to think.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

How do any of you think this differs from the American system, in practice?...

We can only look at our TV screens, oh and listen to our radios, read our newspapers, websites, blogs, etc, and comment on other systems of which we have knowledge and experience.

You can, of course, write off those opinions as being uninformed. After all, it is only based on the high profile stories and doesn't descend to state or local politics except when some celebrity gets elected mayor or something. Perhaps we should just keep our ill-informed views to ourselves?

It is a symptom of political systems everywhere that influence can be bought. It is also true, I think, that in Western democracies, the major political parties are increasingly bland and inseperable, fighting it out over the centre-right "swing territory".

The need to raise vast sums for campaigning seems to be a major contributory factor in both of these. To me, that is the most important thing to address, if we are concerned about making politics truly democratic as opposted to plutocratic.

[hectorberlioz]

You gotta love the drollness

[Nurvingiel]

Ahaha, brilliant. In other news, the Pope is revealed as being Catholic.

If you're wondering what that comic was referring to, it is the big fat whopper Hilary Clinton recently told about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996.

No matter which way her crew spins this, she's not going to escape serious damage. There are two options here:

1. She didn't lie, she misremembered. In this case, she would be a moron. I don't care how long ago you were shot at, but unless it happens to you on a regular basis (which it does not in her case), only a goldfish would forget what really happened.

However, the popular New York senator and lawyer is not a moron, leading us to option two.

2. She did lie, and did not misremember. I see no alternative to her simply trying to get away with embellishing her experience, hoping that she could slip this under the radar. Too bad for her that people actually aren't idiots, and we're a bit sick of politicians who are liars. As jaded as someone might be, thinking that all politicians are crooks, they still are unlikely to accept such a total disregard for the truth and the intelligence of her audience.

I liked Hilary Clinton a lot; she's smart and tough. But her being a big fat liar puts a huge damper on this. I have lost a huge amount of respect for her.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Ahaha, brilliant. In other news, the Pope is revealed as being Catholic.

Haha, good one Nurv. Let's try a few headlines...

"Pope Comes Out: He's Catholic!"

"A Catholic Pope!"

-----------

I like the "Bear Craps In Woods" headline

[Nurvingiel]

You just made the 666th post in this thread! That is somehow significant!

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

"Pope Comes Out"

Fixed it for you. Now that would be an interesting headline.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not like it would be the first time...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You just made the 666th post in this thread! That is somehow significant!

Technically, it's the 667th. The initial starting post counts in the numbered posts, but not in the post count. So it's you, Nurvvy, that's stuck with it

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not like it would be the first time...

Sorry, but ole' Benedict just doesn't seem like he'd be the type.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Don't they call it the German vice?

Bad, bad gwai...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

How do any of you think this differs from the American system, in practice? We have 2 independent Senators, out of 50. We've had a number of 3rd party governors, and have 3rd party candidates serving in every state, pretty much.

And as someone who DOES this, I can tell you, the system is wide open. If you were registered Dems in my district, and attended 2 meetings, you'd probably be asked to be on the district committee. We elected a candidate to the House in a special election who no one on the committee knew at all...and nominated him over TWO long-time members of the committee itself, including the chair. He had the best qualifications, and he won.

It's all very well to sit by a television and complain that the US system is closed, particularly a television that doesn't even originate here. But I'm in these sodding meetings all the time, and I can tell you, it is not so. And as for partisan...I have walked into my statehouse, in several states, and politicians from all ends of the spectrum, invited me in, and listened to me. In my state, here, they buy me lunch.

The first national election I worked on was the presidential election of 1976. (I supported a minority party candidate in that election, btw.) I have never, EVER had any trouble getting my opinions heard. Sometimes people don't agree with me. But I honestly believe, if you represent what the people want, they vote for you. And that's all we're going for, isn't it?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

We can only look at our TV screens, oh and listen to our radios, read our newspapers, websites, blogs, etc, and comment on other systems of which we have knowledge and experience.

You can, of course, write off those opinions as being uninformed. After all, it is only based on the high profile stories and doesn't descend to state or local politics except when some celebrity gets elected mayor or something. Perhaps we should just keep our ill-informed views to ourselves?

It is a symptom of political systems everywhere that influence can be bought. It is also true, I think, that in Western democracies, the major political parties are increasingly bland and inseperable, fighting it out over the centre-right "swing territory".

The need to raise vast sums for campaigning seems to be a major contributory factor in both of these. To me, that is the most important thing to address, if we are concerned about making politics truly democratic as opposted to plutocratic.

Now, honestly, let's unwad the knickers, my friend. I never said, suggested, or implied that everyone should keep their opinions to themselves. I joy in debate. I haven't even said anyone was uninformed. What I WILL say is that the American system is more open than it gets credit for. What isn't open is the media spin. They just plain old don't report (and you know this as least as well as I do) any story that doesn't conform to their playbook.

I think there are evil evil people in politics. Also in car sales. But the daily give and take of politics, as opposed to the rhetoric of the election nonsense, involves quite a good percentage of people for whom the term "public service" is not just a slogan. They may have crazy flashes, and there are some idealogues, but the vast majority of them are still *knock wood* trying to accomplish something that they believe is in the best interests of the people who voted for them. You can't always see that from a distance.

People complain that some aspect of the system keeps down the Green Party, but what keeps down many of the smaller parties is being unable to agree on their platform. Yet, I'll walk into the voting booth and have lines for a number of parties

(C) = Constitution Party
(D) = Democratic Party
(G) = Green Party
(I) = independent candidates
(Ind) = Independence Party
(L) = Libertarian Party
(R) = Republican Party
(WF) = Working Families Party
(WI) = Write-in candidates

I can join or vote for any of them, or even run as a write in... people do that here on statewide elections if they lose a primary, fairly frequently. My Governor wasn't born with a silver spoon, she has a GED.

I think we do a disservice if we just fold our hands and complain, that's what I'm saying. I'm very concerned about the impact of money, this behavior by McCain, for example, had me outraged.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn...._99m6iysgp.pdf

But I still believe people who care should show up at the party CLOSEST to representing their point of view and then fight tooth and nail to get it closer.

[hectorberlioz]

Five Stars For Sis! Woohoo! *****

[The Gaffer]

THanks for replying sis; it did seem as if you might be implying that, and I wouldn't be doing my job if I let you get away with it.

I totally agree: there are many, many people in politics with a high regard for public service. That's as it should be.

My point was really not aimed specifically at the American system, although I think the structure of the primaries means that the candidates have to go through the money-raising grinder twice.

(What's particularly impressive about Obama is that he raised so much of his funds from small personal donations.)

The bad news from my point of view is that our system is becoming more like that. It's also becoming more media-focused, in that it is all about spin, meta-campaigning, in the NFL-rushing-yards stats type way. The media organisations are a dark glass through which to view politics for sure. Not just in terms of their ownership, but also the class and cultural background of the journalists, and their personal ambitions.

The good news is that we are considering reforms to limit campaign spending and more tightly regulate the role of money in buying policy.

As I've said before, the particuarly impressive thing about the primaries system is that it gives people a voice early doors, and seems to really get activated at a grass roots level. It would be unthinkable for someone like Obama to come from nowhere and have a real chance of becoming President.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn...._99m6iysgp.pdf

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

THanks for replying sis; it did seem as if you might be implying that, and I wouldn't be doing my job if I let you get away with it.

Hey, keep an eye on me. I might get a brain tumor and I count on my friends to notice.

I totally agree: there are many, many people in politics with a high regard for public service. That's as it should be.

My point was really not aimed specifically at the American system, although I think the structure of the primaries means that the candidates have to go through the money-raising grinder twice.

I LOATHE primaries. When I write by-laws for things (which, oddly enough, I frequently do) I make sure that voter elegibility is based in several types of involvement, and I wish I could do something similar for the parties. The Dems this year have wasted enormous resources in cash and goodwill, and yet have the general election. Statewide, we are looking at the worst fight for the Governor's nomination (practically unopposed by the R's) EVER. It's messy and mean and expensive and pointless. I cannot believe two good men (both of whom should KNOW better) are engaged in this. Honestly, we could take the darn House seat with what they're blowing on this. (Not that I want it, she admits, heretically. ;0 )

The bad news from my point of view is that our system is becoming more like that. It's also becoming more media-focused, in that it is all about spin, meta-campaigning, in the NFL-rushing-yards stats type way. The media organisations are a dark glass through which to view politics for sure. Not just in terms of their ownership, but also the class and cultural background of the journalists, and their personal ambitions.The good news is that we are considering reforms to limit campaign spending and more tightly regulate the role of money in buying policy.

Well, I wish you all good with that. I'd ban political ads on TV, magazines, and radio, to start. Just like Cigarette ads. They favor a candidate with money, they concentrate campaigning in media markets and they undermine the local organizations. I get email from friends about this Governor's race. That means more to my decision process than the ad campaigns.

As I've said before, the particuarly impressive thing about the primaries system is that it gives people a voice early doors, and seems to really get activated at a grass roots level. It would be unthinkable for someone like Obama to come from nowhere and have a real chance of becoming President.

It's the day AFTER the election that sux, though. Half the voters and activists wake up with a bad hangover and the other half wake up mad at the nominee. Then six of us stuff all the confetti in bags and try to get someone elected. SUX.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Oh, sorry. That required more background, didn't it?

In many states there are two ways to get on the primary ballot. One is by signature. You get a certain amount of signatures from registered voters (usually of your party). However, in some states, you can get on the ballot by raising enough money to qualify for matching funds.

McCain, Mr. "I don't need federal matching funds" guy, put himself on two state ballots (including Delaware's) just by REFERENCING his eligibility. Effectively, although he might not have put cash in his pocket, and he didn't raise his money IN the state, he didn't have to go to the trouble and expense of opening an office, getting signatures, etc. In little state terms it's like having a candidate that wows them in the Balkans and raises a good amount of money in Portugal use that to get on the ballot in Scotland.

Other candidates had to do it the hard way.

[The Gaffer]

It's interesting that Americans often draw analogies with European states as if they were like American states, I'm not sure if it's Americans being parochial or Europeans being in denial. Anyhow, that's by the by.

I still don't really understand that PDF, however I'm prepared to take your word that it signifies his unsuitability for high office.

So if you want to be President do you have to get nominated in every state then?

Here, you get whoever happens to be leader of the party with most MPs as Prime Minister. Far less democratic in some ways. But a lot less farting about, which is probably for the best.

Some of the proposed reforms are quite interesting: caps on spending, state funding of political parties, etc.

We'll see what comes out of it. This government has done some quite radical constitutional stuff (devolution) and botched some other constitutional stuff (House of Lords).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's interesting that Americans often draw analogies with European states as if they were like American states, I'm not sure if it's Americans being parochial or Europeans being in denial. Anyhow, that's by the by.

Well, I considered before taking that approach. I chose it because I don't think some Europeans appreciate how being from a particular state really means a lot to many Americans. Some Americans are kind of stateless, usually because of an over-arching identification (members of tribal nations, for example, or army families) but many are deeply attached to a state identity. In that, it has far more in common with national borders elsewhere than people may appreciate. Also, some of these states are big...quite, as a matter of administration, analogous to nations, rather than districts, or what...counties?

I still don't really understand that PDF, however I'm prepared to take your word that it signifies his unsuitability for high office.

Thanks.

So if you want to be President do you have to get nominated in every state then?

In order to be voted for in the general election, you must appear on the ballot. You do that because your party puts you on. If there was no Green party in your state, there would be no line on the ballot for the Green Party candidate. If you win a certain percentage of the vote, your candidate automatically goes on in the NEXT election. They're every 4 years, no vote of confidence (for those who may not know.)

This references the nomination process, which is decided, state by state, by party officials, and overseen by the governments of each state. Again, it's partly a federalism issue. There are rights you can get in a state that are not transferable to other states. For example, Alaska licenses drivers at 16, but they would not be permitted to drive in Massachusetts at night, or with unrelated minors in the car. In North Dakota, you only have to be 14, but if you were stopped in some states, they'd just take the car.

During the nomination process, each state sets the rules for how a candidate appears on the ballot. Voters in the Delaware Republican primary had a choice of 6 candidates, two of whom had withdrawn by the time of the election. People still voted for them, though. McCain, however, was among candidates who not only never opened an office in the state, he also didn't even send out someone for signatures to get on the ballot. If your hope for the primary system is that it activated people at the grassroots level, it was a failure, in this instance.

Here, you get whoever happens to be leader of the party with most MPs as Prime Minister. Far less democratic in some ways. But a lot less farting about, which is probably for the best.

Prime Minister Howard Dean. Kinda scary.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't think some Europeans appreciate how being from a particular state really means a lot to many Americans.

I think you're right. It's something I've come to realise only in recent years.

Another important difference is that you always know when the next election is going ot be. Our PM calls the date of the general election with about 8 weeks' notice usually.

That kinda prevents this 2-year election campaign beauty contest thing. However, we're getting more and more PR focussed nevertheless.