[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]It hasn't been for the people for a while now. It's for the corporations. [/B][/QUOTE]
And for globalisation and capitalism, and of course for money.
In AU, if you dont register to vote and you fail to vote in an election, it attracts a fine of 50 bucks. Voting here is compulsory. A damned good idea I believe. You watch the political landscape flip upside down overnight if something of this nature passed into legislation in the USA.
I still maintain that biometrics (the buzz word for anything that links your physiology to your ID.. fingerprints/iris scan/DNA etc), on ID is a bad idea. It's like eroding the first ammendment... where do you stop ? It's a padoras box. Aeolus' bag of the winds.
~~~~~
Yeah Striker I know how tough the Mexican/US border is. Remember Ive spent a couple months in Texas, NM, in fact I've been in all but one of the border states. I even went across a couple times. Two minutes to go out of the USA, over an hour and a half to get back... they did everything but a cavity search looking for Hispanics...
"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
-George Bernard Shaw
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
-George Bernard Shaw
Doesn't it?
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]One point of note
In AU, if you dont register to vote and you fail to vote in an election, it attracts a fine of 50 bucks. Voting here is compulsory. A damned good idea I believe. You watch the political landscape flip upside down overnight if something of this nature passed into legislation in the USA.[/b][/quote]
I wish we had something like that here, it's a damn good idea.
[quote][b]I still maintain that biometrics (the buzz word for anything that links your physiology to your ID.. fingerprints/iris scan/DNA etc), on ID is a bad idea. It's like eroding the first ammendment... where do you stop ? It's a padoras box. Aeolus' bag of the winds.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RedAssAg05 [/i]
[B]*yawn*...well, we have to choose between George W. Bush and John Kerry...I thought that the 2000 election was a choice between the lesser of two evils...this one just makes me want to sit at home and drink, rather than vote for either of them
And if you say I should vote for Ralph Nader, I will...well, I don't know what I'll do...but GAH! [/B][/QUOTE]
I hope you realize that not voting just makes things worse, and if you don't vote after a given ammount of time you'll have to re-register. By not voting, you loose your voice in the matter and have absolutely no right to complain if things don't go the way you like.
If more people voted in 2000, we probably wouldn't have this utter moron in office.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]One point of note
Yeah Striker I know how tough the Mexican/US border is. Remember Ive spent a couple months in Texas, NM, in fact I've been in all but one of the border states. I even went across a couple times. Two minutes to go out of the USA, over an hour and a half to get back... they did everything but a cavity search looking for Hispanics... [/B][/QUOTE]
They are not just looking for "Hispanics", but drugs, contraband, etc.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]If more people voted in 2000, we probably wouldn't have this utter moron in office. [/B][/QUOTE]
While I'm not pleased with the way Bush has gone about things, I'm glad he got office, and have no reservations about my voting for him...I personally feel that Gore would have done no better in office.
it is my choice whether I choose to vote for the president or not...I don't HAVE to mark that part of my ballot y'know. I can vote for every other item except that. Geez you people are starting to tick me off. Don't you realize that NOT voting is a voice as well? maybe not as vocal as voting would be...but not casting my vote for president (or writing in) is my way of saying I don't support any of the candidates for office.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RedAssAg05 [/i]
[B] Geez you people are starting to tick me off. Don't you realize that NOT voting is a voice as well? maybe not as vocal as voting would be...but not casting my vote for president (or writing in) is my way of saying I don't support any of the candidates for office. [/B][/QUOTE]
Umm...how is not voting a voice? By not voting, you're not getting your say in the matter either way and you get lumped with the "I don't give a rats ass" crowd. Even if you don't like any of the candidates, you can always write something in.
Writing in is completely different from not voting at all. By writing someone in, you're atleast getting the point across that you don't like the choices you have, and you still voted at the same time meaning your registration won't get invalidated.
Please note what I said previously, Vertigo. Whether I vote for a presidential candidate or not, I DO intend to vote for the other items on the ballot. At the beginning of this post I mentioned just staying at home and not voting...I was being extreme there, to make a point at my displeasure at the options.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Not voting may be a choice, but it's the worst one you can make out of the available options. A far, far better option is to void that part of your vallot by voting for all of them. That way you're still counted but it doesn't go towards any candidate. If you were following the mess in Taiwan in recent weeks you would know that hundreds of thousands of people voided their ballots like this and were noticed because of the number.
I don't know if you have this on your ballots in the states, but here there is always a "No confidence" option in every category that you tick if you feel none of the available options are worth voting for. If the no confidence option wins, then noone gets in. I'm not sure what happens then since no confidence has never won to my knowledge, but I would guess they'd have to hold another election. :)
Wow, a lot of good points here but I also see a lot of misinformation…
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Striker [/i]
[B]
The Electoral College was created due to a few key factors in the 18th century. First of all, the number of "educated people" in the United States was severely lacking. Most people were farmers, ranchers, blacksmiths, etc. who really were not educated.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The Electoral College still plays an important part of our system to elect the leader of the Executive branch. First, though it’s not as big a problem today, the EC limits the influence that vote rigging and corruption can have to a single state or area. That helped keep local political machines, such as Tammany Hall from having undue influence over the presidential election. This is because, no matter how many votes they may stuff the ballot box with, they can only gain the electoral votes for that state, as opposed to throwing the whole election, which they could do if just the popular votes were counted.
Second it helps to geographically spread the decision making power of the people out. If you look at the last election, Bush won a vast majority of the geographic area of the US: [url]http://www.fairvote.org/map/pres2000map.htm,[/url] while Gore won the popular vote. Just as in the Congress, where the House seats are determined by population and the Senate where seats are laid out geographically, there needs to be a balance between population density and the geographic layout of the nation.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Phi [/i]
[B]Just a quick note that that isn't (read 'shouldn't be' :() lobbying. That's just straight bribery. Lobbying is trying to influence politicians (legally one would hope) and is key to a democracy. I believe letter campaigns and protests count as lobbying.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Phi on the lobbing issue, it is a [I]very[/I] important part of a representative democracy. My parents are farmers and they have, on several occasions, gone to Washington to lobby on behalf of the agricultural industry. Lobbyists work to inform Congressional delegates on the issues of which there are literally thousands.
Now I agree there are some problem with the way campaigns are financed, but the solution is not easy. Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally, you now have a system that allows any extreme views and candidates to gain the same amount exposure as more centrist and mainline candidates. Say what you will about our system today, it does keep the fringe element at bay by better funding candidates with more common and reasonable views.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]It hasn't been for the people for a while now. It's for the corporations. [/B][/QUOTE]
And whom do you think the corporations work for, not for themselves, they are not a person. Ultimately a corporation is responsible to its shareholders, and the largest of these shareholders are groups such as mutual funds, 401Ks, IRAs and employee retirement funds. Many of the dollars invested, and therefore many of the dollars earned come from and go to people who have worked hard for much of their life in very normal jobs, making common wages and salaries. In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.
Sorry for the long post, but I felt there were some points to be made.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.[/B][/QUOTE]
Only problem is that corporations doesn't "give boot" for those fat-cat shareholders when they're firing workers in name of better profits.
And that's not so long post, especially because you did good division into paragraphs.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally[/b][/quote]
I think we have that system here. Can't say I've noticed the country falling apart any worse than the US. :)
[quote][b]And whom do you think the corporations work for, not for themselves, they are not a person. Ultimately a corporation is responsible to its shareholders, and the largest of these shareholders are groups such as mutual funds, 401Ks, IRAs and employee retirement funds. Many of the dollars invested, and therefore many of the dollars earned come from and go to people who have worked hard for much of their life in very normal jobs, making common wages and salaries. In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, but while corporations are supposedly benefiting the shareholders, many also happily not worrying about things like evolving with the times, the environment, and putting profits ahead of anything else.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally, you now have a system that allows any extreme views and candidates to gain the same amount exposure as more centrist and mainline candidates. Say what you will about our system today, it does keep the fringe element at bay by better funding candidates with more common and reasonable views.[/B][/QUOTE]
I believe Canada is moving towards that sort of system. Personally I don't see anything wrong with spicing up the political playing field. Makes the debates more interesting, if nothing else ;)
I'm all for representative government as well. I know there are problems with it, but I think it would lead to a government that actually represents the people. More than our current system at least.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]my nation ?
I do not give my allegiance to any nation, cetainly not to AU in its current state... our Prime Minister is a tiny minded little conservative and Dubya's bicycle...
and Ahash...
why not blood tests ? DNA ? retinal scans ? stool and urine sample ? cavity searches all round ?
this is a campaign of inches... not something you'll notice till its too late. Fingerprints and mugshots are the thin edge of a much larger wedge.
Do you feel like showing your drivers licence when you drive across, at the STATE border Ahash ? Then being mugshot and fingerprinted before you allowed on your way ?
Do you want to submit to the same sorts of scans within your own country to fly interstate ? Remember the 9/11 planes were interstate and not international flights.
These 'security' checks are all perfectly 'legitimate' ways of trying to curb terrorist movement inside the USA. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but there is a difference, my constitution applies to me, not you, and once we get down to the only actual logical justification for rights, absent a telelogical (religious argument) the modus vivendi argument that it is an agreement amongst a politiy to establish those rights for its members, those outside the polity have no claims for protection.
Yeah, I know what I just said, deal with it. you want natural rights, you gotta give a teleological argument, and then I can work with that. But frankly even then you dont have the god given right to go trapsing around in another persons country. We can control or deny access as we see fit. Its the same principle as an individuals house or property.
As for undermining the first amendment, there isnt anything in the first about this, no freedom of speech, press, religon or the other things are invalidated, you might have a 4th ammendment issue, but Im not so sure about that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Phi [/i]
[B]I believe Canada is moving towards that sort of system. Personally I don't see anything wrong with spicing up the political playing field. Makes the debates more interesting, if nothing else ;)
-Φ [/B][/QUOTE]
It sure does
"& then were goin to Washington to take back the White House! RAWR!" -Howard Dean
The problem is the media initially loved dean, then he started getting his ass handed to him in the primaries. Well the media also doesnt like looking like idiots or loosers, and they spent all this time hyping up Howard Dean, when if you look at the actual democratic party make up, he didnt have alot of support in large chunks of its constituancy.
So the media because they like Dean and because they see all the college rable rousers backing dean, thing "cool this guy is going to be the dems guy!" problem is the majority of the democratic party was going for kerry, which the media didnt realize, or actually i think they were ignoring that, figuring their hype would carry over.
Anyways end of story, because kerry had a lock on the union votes, and the union supporters, kerry gets the nod.
I guess I really didnt think "RAWR" would ever be a reason not to vote for a candidate. However I have no idea what he stood for anyway, should I even care any administration is gonna dick around anyway.
Comments
[B]It hasn't been for the people for a while now. It's for the corporations. [/B][/QUOTE]
And for globalisation and capitalism, and of course for money.
In AU, if you dont register to vote and you fail to vote in an election, it attracts a fine of 50 bucks. Voting here is compulsory. A damned good idea I believe. You watch the political landscape flip upside down overnight if something of this nature passed into legislation in the USA.
I still maintain that biometrics (the buzz word for anything that links your physiology to your ID.. fingerprints/iris scan/DNA etc), on ID is a bad idea. It's like eroding the first ammendment... where do you stop ? It's a padoras box. Aeolus' bag of the winds.
~~~~~
Yeah Striker I know how tough the Mexican/US border is. Remember Ive spent a couple months in Texas, NM, in fact I've been in all but one of the border states. I even went across a couple times. Two minutes to go out of the USA, over an hour and a half to get back... they did everything but a cavity search looking for Hispanics...
-George Bernard Shaw
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
-George Bernard Shaw
Doesn't it?
[B]One point of note
In AU, if you dont register to vote and you fail to vote in an election, it attracts a fine of 50 bucks. Voting here is compulsory. A damned good idea I believe. You watch the political landscape flip upside down overnight if something of this nature passed into legislation in the USA.[/b][/quote]
I wish we had something like that here, it's a damn good idea.
[quote][b]I still maintain that biometrics (the buzz word for anything that links your physiology to your ID.. fingerprints/iris scan/DNA etc), on ID is a bad idea. It's like eroding the first ammendment... where do you stop ? It's a padoras box. Aeolus' bag of the winds.[/b][/quote]
What's so bad about making abuse of IDs harder?
[B]*yawn*...well, we have to choose between George W. Bush and John Kerry...I thought that the 2000 election was a choice between the lesser of two evils...this one just makes me want to sit at home and drink, rather than vote for either of them
And if you say I should vote for Ralph Nader, I will...well, I don't know what I'll do...but GAH! [/B][/QUOTE]
I hope you realize that not voting just makes things worse, and if you don't vote after a given ammount of time you'll have to re-register. By not voting, you loose your voice in the matter and have absolutely no right to complain if things don't go the way you like.
If more people voted in 2000, we probably wouldn't have this utter moron in office.
[B]One point of note
Yeah Striker I know how tough the Mexican/US border is. Remember Ive spent a couple months in Texas, NM, in fact I've been in all but one of the border states. I even went across a couple times. Two minutes to go out of the USA, over an hour and a half to get back... they did everything but a cavity search looking for Hispanics... [/B][/QUOTE]
They are not just looking for "Hispanics", but drugs, contraband, etc.
[B]If more people voted in 2000, we probably wouldn't have this utter moron in office. [/B][/QUOTE]
While I'm not pleased with the way Bush has gone about things, I'm glad he got office, and have no reservations about my voting for him...I personally feel that Gore would have done no better in office.
it is my choice whether I choose to vote for the president or not...I don't HAVE to mark that part of my ballot y'know. I can vote for every other item except that. Geez you people are starting to tick me off. Don't you realize that NOT voting is a voice as well? maybe not as vocal as voting would be...but not casting my vote for president (or writing in) is my way of saying I don't support any of the candidates for office.
[B] Geez you people are starting to tick me off. Don't you realize that NOT voting is a voice as well? maybe not as vocal as voting would be...but not casting my vote for president (or writing in) is my way of saying I don't support any of the candidates for office. [/B][/QUOTE]
Umm...how is not voting a voice? By not voting, you're not getting your say in the matter either way and you get lumped with the "I don't give a rats ass" crowd. Even if you don't like any of the candidates, you can always write something in.
Writing in is completely different from not voting at all. By writing someone in, you're atleast getting the point across that you don't like the choices you have, and you still voted at the same time meaning your registration won't get invalidated.
I don't know if you have this on your ballots in the states, but here there is always a "No confidence" option in every category that you tick if you feel none of the available options are worth voting for. If the no confidence option wins, then noone gets in. I'm not sure what happens then since no confidence has never won to my knowledge, but I would guess they'd have to hold another election. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Striker [/i]
[B]
The Electoral College was created due to a few key factors in the 18th century. First of all, the number of "educated people" in the United States was severely lacking. Most people were farmers, ranchers, blacksmiths, etc. who really were not educated.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The Electoral College still plays an important part of our system to elect the leader of the Executive branch. First, though it’s not as big a problem today, the EC limits the influence that vote rigging and corruption can have to a single state or area. That helped keep local political machines, such as Tammany Hall from having undue influence over the presidential election. This is because, no matter how many votes they may stuff the ballot box with, they can only gain the electoral votes for that state, as opposed to throwing the whole election, which they could do if just the popular votes were counted.
Second it helps to geographically spread the decision making power of the people out. If you look at the last election, Bush won a vast majority of the geographic area of the US: [url]http://www.fairvote.org/map/pres2000map.htm,[/url] while Gore won the popular vote. Just as in the Congress, where the House seats are determined by population and the Senate where seats are laid out geographically, there needs to be a balance between population density and the geographic layout of the nation.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Phi [/i]
[B]Just a quick note that that isn't (read 'shouldn't be' :() lobbying. That's just straight bribery. Lobbying is trying to influence politicians (legally one would hope) and is key to a democracy. I believe letter campaigns and protests count as lobbying.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Phi on the lobbing issue, it is a [I]very[/I] important part of a representative democracy. My parents are farmers and they have, on several occasions, gone to Washington to lobby on behalf of the agricultural industry. Lobbyists work to inform Congressional delegates on the issues of which there are literally thousands.
Now I agree there are some problem with the way campaigns are financed, but the solution is not easy. Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally, you now have a system that allows any extreme views and candidates to gain the same amount exposure as more centrist and mainline candidates. Say what you will about our system today, it does keep the fringe element at bay by better funding candidates with more common and reasonable views.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]It hasn't been for the people for a while now. It's for the corporations. [/B][/QUOTE]
And whom do you think the corporations work for, not for themselves, they are not a person. Ultimately a corporation is responsible to its shareholders, and the largest of these shareholders are groups such as mutual funds, 401Ks, IRAs and employee retirement funds. Many of the dollars invested, and therefore many of the dollars earned come from and go to people who have worked hard for much of their life in very normal jobs, making common wages and salaries. In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.
Sorry for the long post, but I felt there were some points to be made.
Jake
[B]In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.[/B][/QUOTE]
Only problem is that corporations doesn't "give boot" for those fat-cat shareholders when they're firing workers in name of better profits.
And that's not so long post, especially because you did good division into paragraphs.
[B]Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally[/b][/quote]
I think we have that system here. Can't say I've noticed the country falling apart any worse than the US. :)
[quote][b]And whom do you think the corporations work for, not for themselves, they are not a person. Ultimately a corporation is responsible to its shareholders, and the largest of these shareholders are groups such as mutual funds, 401Ks, IRAs and employee retirement funds. Many of the dollars invested, and therefore many of the dollars earned come from and go to people who have worked hard for much of their life in very normal jobs, making common wages and salaries. In the end the success of a corporation benefits the average Joe just as much as it benefits some fat-cat individual shareholder.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, but while corporations are supposedly benefiting the shareholders, many also happily not worrying about things like evolving with the times, the environment, and putting profits ahead of anything else.
[B]Say we were to go to a system of government that pays for all election campaigns equally, you now have a system that allows any extreme views and candidates to gain the same amount exposure as more centrist and mainline candidates. Say what you will about our system today, it does keep the fringe element at bay by better funding candidates with more common and reasonable views.[/B][/QUOTE]
I believe Canada is moving towards that sort of system. Personally I don't see anything wrong with spicing up the political playing field. Makes the debates more interesting, if nothing else ;)
I'm all for representative government as well. I know there are problems with it, but I think it would lead to a government that actually represents the people. More than our current system at least.
-Φ
[B]my nation ?
I do not give my allegiance to any nation, cetainly not to AU in its current state... our Prime Minister is a tiny minded little conservative and Dubya's bicycle...
and Ahash...
why not blood tests ? DNA ? retinal scans ? stool and urine sample ? cavity searches all round ?
this is a campaign of inches... not something you'll notice till its too late. Fingerprints and mugshots are the thin edge of a much larger wedge.
Do you feel like showing your drivers licence when you drive across, at the STATE border Ahash ? Then being mugshot and fingerprinted before you allowed on your way ?
Do you want to submit to the same sorts of scans within your own country to fly interstate ? Remember the 9/11 planes were interstate and not international flights.
These 'security' checks are all perfectly 'legitimate' ways of trying to curb terrorist movement inside the USA. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but there is a difference, my constitution applies to me, not you, and once we get down to the only actual logical justification for rights, absent a telelogical (religious argument) the modus vivendi argument that it is an agreement amongst a politiy to establish those rights for its members, those outside the polity have no claims for protection.
Yeah, I know what I just said, deal with it. you want natural rights, you gotta give a teleological argument, and then I can work with that. But frankly even then you dont have the god given right to go trapsing around in another persons country. We can control or deny access as we see fit. Its the same principle as an individuals house or property.
As for undermining the first amendment, there isnt anything in the first about this, no freedom of speech, press, religon or the other things are invalidated, you might have a 4th ammendment issue, but Im not so sure about that.
[B]I believe Canada is moving towards that sort of system. Personally I don't see anything wrong with spicing up the political playing field. Makes the debates more interesting, if nothing else ;)
-Φ [/B][/QUOTE]
It sure does
"& then were goin to Washington to take back the White House! RAWR!" -Howard Dean
[B]
"& then were goin to Washington to take back the White House! RAWR!" -Howard Dean [/B][/QUOTE]
hehe
boy that really screwed his campaign didnt it.
The problem is the media initially loved dean, then he started getting his ass handed to him in the primaries. Well the media also doesnt like looking like idiots or loosers, and they spent all this time hyping up Howard Dean, when if you look at the actual democratic party make up, he didnt have alot of support in large chunks of its constituancy.
So the media because they like Dean and because they see all the college rable rousers backing dean, thing "cool this guy is going to be the dems guy!" problem is the majority of the democratic party was going for kerry, which the media didnt realize, or actually i think they were ignoring that, figuring their hype would carry over.
Anyways end of story, because kerry had a lock on the union votes, and the union supporters, kerry gets the nod.