First, thanks to the members of this list for tolerating all of our
off-topic ranting on politics. Personally, I'm glad that there's some
people around who are interested in politics and discussing the role and
performance of government. Beats the heck out of apathy.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Jamin Collins wrote:
= Sorry to continue off-topic, but there are a few items I feel need cleared
= up.
=
= You have a slight misnomer here, elections are most certainly not decided by
= the "swing voter" (as you put it). Shockingly enough, the election
= is not even decided by the millions of people that turn out to the polls
= thinking their vote counts. The sad fact of the mater is that elections are
= decided only by the electoral votes. What impact does this have? Simple,
= it means that the power to elect a President of America rests in a small
= sub-set of America. There have been a few occurrences where the popular
= (read majority of public voters) have elected one candidate only to have the
= electoral (read small sub-set) elect the other candidate. IIRC, this
= happened with Clinton's first election, the public voted for Bush and the
= electoral for Clinton.
Although your last statement is incorrect (regarding the percentages that
the *three* candidates-- Clinton, Bush, and Ross Perot-- received), I
heartily agree with the rest of your argument. Presumably, the electoral
college was written into the US Constitution to make for simpler counting.
Back in the 18th century it would have been too much math and possibly a
logistical problem to collect all the votes from around the country-- or
their count from all the various precincts around the country-- and tally
them in one place. Perhaps too, our founding fathers (sorry to the
females, but it was an all male group) wanted another layer of
representation in the election process. At any rate, this is the system
we've been given.
These days, however, doing this sort of math-- adding millions-- is
something we can all do quite easily. To return more of the power of the
vote to the voters, we should dispense with the electoral college and
elect our politicians by their plurality of the popular vote. I would
also like to see our Senators elected by a *nationwide* popular vote; that
is, Senators wouldn't be elected to represent states. Rather, each
Senator would be elected by and represent all of the voters, not just the
interest of his or her state. This would open up possibilites for more
third party involvement in government and probably eliminate competition
for Federal aid based on geography.
=
= It is because of this sad fact that I will never vote in another American
= Presidential election again. Why should anyone vote when there is nothing
= to force the electoral voters to vote the same way?
You have to be involved in the process to change the process. By bowing
out of involvement, you're giving to your voice to others who may not be
as savvy as yourself... those who are blind to history and candidates'
records and issues.
=
= Additionally, why as a country should we be forced to choose the lesser of
= two evils when it comes to our President (assuming of course that we are the
= ones that choose).
See my first paragraphs.
= Why not instead add an option to the ballet that says
= "None - restart" or something to that effect, which in essence means: I
= don't want any of the options that have been presented as I don't find
= anyone of them fit for the job.
Because there *must* be someone acting as President. We can't have a
government without people doing the things that government does.
= Additionally, if this option has the
= majority vote, it results in what would essentially be a whole new campaign
= with new candidates. If something like this were in place (again assuming
= that the people were the ones whose votes counted) I'm fairly certain you
= would see more involvement from the American public when it comes to
= electing their officials. Hell, we might actually get qualified people to
= choose from.
I'm not following your reasoning here, but appreciate the aims expressed.
kf
--
My recommendation: Don't shop at Explorer Micro, Columbus, Ohio.
=
= Feel free to begin flaming now.
=
= Jamin W. Collins
= -----Original Message-----
= From: Michaell Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
= Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:52 AM
= To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
= Subject: US Elections
=
=
= Wow. Talk about not wanting to start a flame war!!
= Seems like the debate here is even more full of
= mis-statements than the ones that are complained of.
= Getting back to the original question, non-Americans have a
= difficult time understanding American politics. Generally, European leaders
= are brought up through the ranks, serving in various high level capacities
= prior to assuming the top position. European leaders normally understand
= the workings of each Ministry (American read Department here) of the
= government - having lead many of them previously. Americans, both Democrats
= and Republicans, have a distrust - nearly genetic disposition if you will -
= of government when compared to Europeans. There are many reasons for this
= including 1) cultural, 2) the degree of atomization of authority and thus
= responsibility in the American system (which we demand with it comes to
= authority and despise when it comes to responsibility), 3) electoral system
= laws which force parties to be quite weak, 4) diverse geography which
= reinforces the weakness (issues have not only ideological content, but
= historically strong geographical content as well).
= The result is that Europeans have extremely short
= "campaigns" between parties, less on personalities, which focus more on
= issues and stances. Contenders are highly qualified, but might be termed
= "insiders" in an American context. American's distrust the insider. US
= Presidents are frequently elected with far less experience than a European
= leader would ever have when elected.
= By far the majority of American's who vote do so based on
= solid analysis and/or ideological gut feelings. However, the sort of
= electoral laws result in two parties inevitably (nearly so anyway) evenly
= splitting the electorate. Elections are decided frequently by the "swing
= voters" who don't have solid opinions about politics, don't really follow
= politics, not normally interesting in public issues (scary eh). These people
= care about issues, how things are going, but also personalities a bit more
= than "normal voters". - Thus, our campaigns tend to be longer (when
= undecided people don't read newspapers - how do you get to them? Answer: a
= barrage of television ads) and more personal.
= Are US elections a Hollywood show? No, though they may
= appear to be. There is no evidence that campaigns effect voters choices
= significantly - we are smarter than that. If Americans had 4-5 week
= campaign periods, like those that are common in Europe, the results would be
= very close to the same as it is now. American campaigns simply reinforce
= political opinions and positions that we had before the campaigns began.
= Let me ask a viewer 10 questions before a Presidential debate, and with a
= 92% accuracy level, I'll predict who they said won the debate after they
= finish viewing it. People tend to hear their candidate say what they want
= their candidate to say. The remaining 8% will change their minds frequently
= in reaction to press coverage over the next several days.
= So why do the campaigns exist? Better question, what is to
= stop them? Candidates are willing to try anything to get elected - even
= two, 3, 4 year campaigns spending millions. Advertisers? Media? Political
= consultants? Everybody makes money off of the campaign. There are no brakes
= on the process. On the positive side, a presidential campaign is the only
= time that this highly fragmented nation really talks about itself, where we
= are going, where we want to go. Even if only a handful of people change
= their minds, the discussion is probably good. Smaller, less fragmented
= nations have such discussions in less spectacular ways and more often - but
= hey this is America.
= Sorry to have continued an 'off-the-wall' subject, but the
= thread touched my Political Scientist side of this linux enthusiast.
=
= ========================
= Michaell Taylor, PhD
= Senior Economist, Reis.com, New York, USA
= Professor of Political Science, NTNU, Norway
= Professor of Statistics, UofD, South Africa
=
= -----Original Message-----
= From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
= <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
= <mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> On Behalf Of Ward William E
= PHDN
= Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:07 AM
= To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
= Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
= Subject: RE: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing
= the Internet?
=
= Let's not get in a flame war and hear about how the media of
= other countries
= can be just as manipulative as the media here in the US.
=
= However, seen by many in the US, Al Gore is a slick,
= uncaring, big spending
= lawyer who knows as much about the common man's condition as
= I do of being
= filthy rich, i.e., none. He was raised by a career
= politician with his own
= (thwarted) political ambitions to be one thing: president,
= regardless of
= what that meant. And Al has tried to achieve that goal, by
= any means
= necessary. He has consistently shown that he is willing to
= do, or say
= what it takes, regardless of his own personal beliefs. In
= 1991-92,
= before Al became Vice President, I fervently hoped that he
= would become
= president, as in general, I liked many of the things he
= said. As vice
= president of perhaps the most corrupt and morally destitute
= Presidency
= in history, he went along, supporting and defending
= President Clinton,
= and by both his accounts (prior to the Lewinsky scandal) and
= the presidents,
= he's been a player in the administration; now that that may
= not be a
= good asset to have, he's seriously backed off his own
= accomplishments
= in the administration. Al has been caught MANY times
= "misspeaking or
= missrembering". He gets away with it due to a strong
= liberal stance
= in many media sources, and a VERY strong, VERY liberal
= stance of Hollywood.
= Al Gore's "honest reasons" for becoming president are that
= he wants to
= be the most powerful man in the world.
=
= George W. Bush is not a charlatan... but he's not a savior,
= either. He
= comes in with EXACTLY as much experience as Bill Clinton had
= when he became
= president, which Clinton and the other Democrats said was
= MORE than
= sufficient. He has indeed "misspoke" and "missrembered" at
= times, but
= certainly not more than Al Gore has. BTW, in your comment,
= you betrayed
= a very UN-American thought process (but since you are an
= American, it's
= to be expected): Bush CANNOT be "seeking office on false
= grounds"; there
= are no false grounds to seek office in. Each person put up
= for president
= simply says that they will serve in office to the best of
= their abilities.
= George Bush's "false grounds" for seeking office are that he
= wants to be
= the most powerful man in the world.... same as Al's honest
= reason. Both
= think they can do a better job than the other, which I don't
= see in either
= case being more honest or more false than the other.
=
= My honest and informed vote (and as an American, mine counts
= in this) is
= that if I could so choose, I would choose neither; forced to
= choose one
= or the other, it's time for a change, and I'll vote for
= Bush. I'd much
= rather, however, have had choices such as Bill Bradley and
= Elizabeth Dole
= to choose from.
=
= Of course, it really doesn't matter which we choose, in the
= long run;
= they are both counting on things happening after the
= election that will NOT
= happen. Hang on folks, with either of these two, we're
= about to have a
= recession (it's already started up, folks are just ignoring
= it at the
= moment),
= and it's my strong belief that this presidency is a "one
= term wonder"
= shot...
= because by the time the next election starts, the economy is
= going to be
= in a shambles.
=
= Oh, and this is so far off topic here, it's ridiculous. Can
= we get back to
= Linux, or at least off politics?
=
= Bill Ward
= -----Original Message-----
= From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
= [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] <mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]>
= Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:09 AM
= To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
= <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
= Subject: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing the
= Internet?
=
=
= I donnot understand the fuzz regarding Al Gore on this list.
= Seen from
= abroad,
= he is a serious person seeking the office for honest
= reasons.
=
= G. W. Bush is a charlatan seeking the office on false
= grounds. He is a
= charming
= guy that can get away with lying publically on TV. I
= wittnessed that in a TV
=
= show the other day.
= Is the US election a Hollywood show rather than seeking the
= best person
= suited
= for the most powerfull office in the world?
=
= Rgds
= Peter Bech
= Informi A/S
=
=
=
= _______________________________________________
= Redhat-list mailing list
= [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
= https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
= <https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list>
=
=
=
=
= _______________________________________________
= Redhat-list mailing list
= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
= https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
=
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
