What I learned from the debates

[Tydd]

The Creation of the Electoral Process
The electoral process developed from the American Constitution which was written in 1785. The framers of the Constitution debated and rejected a direct popular vote. They believed most Americans were poorly educated and unable to make wise political decisions. The framers were concerned that the populace would vote for a charismatic president instead of a qualified and intelligent president. Thus, the electoral college was created. The number of a state's electoral votes is equal to the number of senators and representatives it has in Congress. For example, Nebraska has four electoral votes because it has two senators and 2 representatives. An elector cannot be a federal employee or work for the government in any capacity. This rule was made in order to prevent senators and representatives from becoming electors and to maintain separation between the legislative and executive branches the government.

The Electoral Process
The electoral process is long and complex and has changed significantly over the years. According to the original rules, each state legislature chose its electors. The electors would then meet at a prescribed time and vote for two people. The person with the most votes became the president and the runner-up became the vice-president. The vice-presidency was created to ensure that the second most qualified person to be the president was in line for the presidency. This system continued until the 1800 election.

By 1800, American politics were controlled by political parties. "The electors became captives of their parties and voted for party candidates." In the 1800 election the electors' vote resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Under the rules at the time, in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives voted to break the tie. Thomas Jefferson became the President and Aaron Burr became the Vice-President. The competition between Jefferson and Burr made the executive government very disjointed. This impasse resulted in the first alteration of the electoral process. The electors after 1800 voted separately for the president and the vice- president. In addition, presidents and vice-presidents from the same party ran together in the election.

Between 1840 and 1900 the electoral system was oriented toward the general population. The electoral system was changed again so that people, as opposed to state legislators, chose the electors. Today, each state has its own elector selection laws, but the systems generally fall into two categories: the caucus or popular election system. In a caucus, individuals in a community or district meet at a designated place and vote for electors that represent the candidates they want to be president and vice-president. The caucus votes are then compiled state-wide. In other states, a general election is used to vote for electors for that state. In some states only the electors' or the candidates' names appears on the ballot. Finally, all the electors in each state get together and vote for president and the vice-president.

The Convention System
The advent of the party convention further changed the electoral process. In the first few American elections, parties met and held caucuses to decide their presidential and vice-presidential candidates. In 1831, a small party met at a saloon in Baltimore to decide their party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The next year the Democratic Party held a similar convention in the same saloon. Today, a convention is held by large political parties to choose one candidate out of the many running as the official party candidate for the presidency and one for the vice-presidency. The chosen candidate then runs against the candidates of the other parties in the general election.

American politics has always been dominated by two major parties, although the parties themselves have changed over the years. In fact, American election laws and regulations favor the two-party system and makes it tremendously difficult for a third party candidate to run.

Primary Elections
Early in the twentieth century there was a growing sentiment among the American public that political party elites controlled the elections and the candidates. The primary election system was created to compete with the political convention system. The primary elections are regulated by state laws and political party regulations at the state level. The Democratic and the Republican parties have different state level rules regarding delegates, representation at the convention, and the time-frame for primary elections or caucuses. For example, since the mid-1970s, the Democratic party has required that 50% of its delegates be women.

Each state has a delegation that goes to the national party convention. Delegates are chosen in caucuses or primaries, depending on the jurisdiction. The delegates, in turn, vote for the candidates they want to represent the party in the general elections. In some cases, the percentage of votes a candidate receives in a state's primary or caucus represents the number of delegates that support him/her on the state's delegation to the convention. In many states, the candidate with the most votes in the state primary wins all the delegates. This means, of course, that the state's entire delegation supports one candidate. To ensure loyalty, the delegates are usually slated by the candidates themselves. The individual chosen to run from each party selects a running mate, the vice president, during the convention.

General Elections
After each political party selects a presidential candidate, the candidates then run against each other in the general election. The population votes for the electors that represent the candidates and not the candidates themselves--in spite of the fact that the electors' names often don't appear on the ballots. The electors then vote for the candidates approximately one month after the ballots are cast by the general population. The candidates receive all the electoral votes of the states where they have the majority. For example, if candidate Smith receives 51% and candidate Brown receives 49% of the popular vote in a state, and the state has 12 electoral votes (the total number of senators and representatives), then candidate Smith wins all 12 of the electoral votes of that state. This policy is highly controversial because the electoral college is disproportionately represented by smaller states, which may result in election of the candidate who has received fewer votes.

[Rosslyn]

"this is one thing that find increadibly stupid, and it makes it hard for me to believe i live in a damocracy."

I have a couple of comments on this (I know, you're shocked).  First, we absolutely do not live in a "democracy".  I believe the accepted term for our government is "federal republic".  A true democracy would almost inevitably result in millions of people doing nothing every day but voting on even the smallest issues.  A republic is based on a representative government, where the general population directly elects designated representatives who handle the day-to-day voting and law-passing and all of that stuff so the rest of us can actually do productive things.  The electoral college (for the record, I think this is kind of dumb too, but it's the way it is currently) is pretty much an extension of the republic concept, even if the original intent (as Tydd so eloquently and plagiaristically (?) stated) was essentially to save Americans from themselves.

As to the part of LB's question "how exactly are the people of this country being represented when the guy with the least votes gets in?", I think the answer lies in the fact that it's the united STATES, as opposed to the united PEOPLE.  Many parts of the government, such as the divided congress (House and Senate) are meant to strike some sort of balance between the thoughts of each state having some sort of sovereign equality with the other states, and also with the assertion that the state with the most people should be a little more equal than the rest.  California's popular vote pretty much makes Rhode Island's and North Dakota's votes meaningless.  Think of it this way:  you and three friends start a company.  You each own stock, but the guy who had the brilliant idea in the first place has 51% of the stock.  In this case, should the three of  you never be able to outvote the one guy with the most stock?  Obviously, in any sort of "vote", the guy with 51% is going to win regardless of what you want.  What the electoral college process says (this might be a little simplified, lol) is that the 51% guy gets two votes on the "board" of your company, and you each get one, or something like that.  This way, if three of you agree and he doesn't, you can still band together and enact your ideas.  

There are numerous analogies to explain this.  Sports analogies work well also.  The Patriots might go 15-1 over the regular season, but maybe the Colts go 14-2 and score more points.  Does this mean the Colts should be the higher seed?  After all, scoring more points is how you win games, right?  Well, the league says it's primarily concerned with winning games, and scoring points is WAY down on the tiebreaker scale.  This is nearly the same thing as the electoral college:  getting popular votes is the way to win electoral votes, but the Constitution says that winning the electoral votes is how we'll judge which candidate gets to be the next President.

[Zutroy]

edit - damn, ross beat me to it.

"this is one thing that find increadibly stupid, and it makes it hard for me to believe i live in a damocracy."

Technically the US is a representative republic, not a democracy. Hence why you elect senators and representatives to vote for you.

"how exactly are the people of this country being represented when the guy with the least votes gets in?"

The modern arguement, whether you agree with it or not, is that if the electoral college wasn't in place, major population centers would dominate all elections and the needs of rural & midwest americans would never be addressed. A good example of this is Illinois - 90% of the state (landmass wise) is conservative/republican but because Chicago is so big and always goes liberal/democrat, it completely dominates the way the state votes. New York is another example of this.

I agree this probably isn't the fairest system, but keep in mind that several other modern countries (Australia & Canada for example) don't even get to elect their heads of state

(Edited by Zutroy at 2:53 pm on Oct. 8, 2004)

[Siddhartha]

Zutt - what am I supposed to glean from the article exactly?

Is it an example about how the Iraq war is actually an investment in anti-terrorism? The mother-jones article was just stating the facts about how much homeland defense costs relative to the costs of the war in Iraq. The point of course is that if we want to fight terror, there are probably more efficient ways of doing so than the invasion of mid-sized countries.

There's an awful lot of blood and wasted lives to be accounted for in the reckoning of cost.

[Zutroy]

"Is it an example about how the Iraq war is actually an investment in anti-terrorism?"

Yes. The efficiency part of it is all a matter of opinion since we have no idea if the alternative would have resulted in the same outcome.

"There's an awful lot of blood and wasted lives to be accounted for in the reckoning of cost. "

Wasted lives?

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

I absolutely do agree that the US system is not particularly democratic, if it was Raph Nader would be getting a lot more of the vote than he does since many choose not to vote for him due to your first past the post system.  I understand how the electoral college system works, I think it is an outdated and stupid system especially since it is inconsistent in its application accross the states and their is nothing to mandate the person elected in the electoral college voting the way they said they would. Someone once said to me they made the electoral college because they didnt trust the people to vote. That you can win in some states by a small proportion but get all the electoral college votes beggars belief. That system is im fairly certain not universal despite what Ross says. Some states if you win 8 out of 12 electoral college votes you get 8 not 12. To get 12 would make an already dodgy system worse which is the case in Florida and why that state was crucial. Be that as it may there are far better and more representative systems around.

As to Zuts comment I would not trade our democracy for yours ever, our head of state is titular ie the Queen and she is purely a figuehead and a much more trustworty and respectably one than yours Real power is not put in one person, your president is a politican, hell i think you people are crazy to trust any politician (politiicans are one step lower than lawyers and bankers) with that much power especially given some of the putz's you elect to the position. Our system of elections is representative (proportianl representation is a good system and country areas are fairly respresented), fairer and less open to abuse than yours. We also all vote unlike America and till you do that I dont really see you as a democracy at all. When it comes down to it the US spends to much time electing people who should be going for the job on their qualifications ie sherrifs DAs teachers etc and too little ensuring a fair and equitable vote for your government.

As to Florida, I think any honest look at that election would agree that a great deal of corruption was involved. The disenfranchisement of a large segment of voters with the active co operation of Texas being a prime example. Replublicans might like to try and gloss over that and im neither a republican or a democrat but corrupt it certainly was.

As to the Texas team who i got to admit ive never heard or nor really could care less about?? that its common doesnt make it right

As to the origianl post, I think it is a pretty good summation of Bush probably a little flattering to him if anything. And other than the areas i mentioned it is factually accurate despite any assertions to the contrary and mostly on the public record as such. I think for starters if you dont think that most Europeans and most people anywhere outside of the US oppose the unprovoked attack on Iraq then your burying your head in the sand.  Most of the countries who got dragged into the ridiculous coalition of the willing had populations which were anything other than willing. George Bush is without doubt the most hated US president ever outside of the US, something he has earned and which isnt automatic since some US presidents were respected outside the US even if they did tell the people of Berlin they were a sausage . In fact in some areas it understates the truth.

[Siddhartha]

Actually a Berliner is a type of pastry like a doughnut.

To say he was "of Berlin", he should have said, "Ich bin Berliner."

What did I want to add to this...oh yeah - fuel for the cynics...

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

[Zutroy]

"As to Zuts comment I would not trade our democracy for yours ever, our head of state is titular ie the Queen and she is purely a figuehead and a much more trustworty and respectably one than yours"

I was actually refering to your Governer-General. I'm assuming he gets "selected" from the majority party, no?

"We also all vote unlike America and till you do that I dont really see you as a democracy at all"

Yeah, that's because you can get imprisoned or fined if you don't. Do the words "compulsory voting" ring a bell? In america, at least you have the right to NOT vote.

"Our system of elections is representative (proportianl representation is a good system and country areas are fairly respresented), fairer and less open to abuse than yours."

We also have proportional representation, it's called the house of representatives. Their website is located here: http://www.house.gov/  - feel free to read up on them.

"Real power is not put in one person"

Legislative -> excutive -> judicial -> legislative. Both the house and senate had to approve the use of force against Iraq, and guess which senator voted for it?

"When it comes down to it the US spends to much time electing people who should be going for the job on their qualifications ie sherrifs DAs teachers etc and too little ensuring a fair and equitable vote for your government."

I see, so in your opinion, we should trust the politicians to appoint these people for us? Then please explain this comment to me:

" hell i think you people are crazy to trust any politician (politiicans are one step lower than lawyers and bankers) with that much power "

edit - mmmmm donuts

(Edited by Zutroy at 7:39 pm on Oct. 8, 2004)

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Actually a Berliner in Germany is a sausage, I got this from several German friends so i figure they would know. Add to that no resident of Berlin refers to themselves as a Berliner, apparently the Germans were quite amused at the time.

You get a small fine if you dont vote but I think thats far better than an unrepresentative system where only a tiny percentage of the population votes. For citizens to vote is not a big ask in a democracy.

The Governer General is the Queens representative not the head of state. He does perform the same functions as the Queen would though. Having said that he exercises no real power and isnt involved in any decision making processes. He is normally selected by the party in power on non political lines, usually a respected citizen, in the past they have been Generals, Admirals, Bishops etc. I only know of one who was a politician. Since they dont have any real power its not a big issue.

Actually the president can committ your country to war without the senates approval, he must seek their approval within 3 months. If im wrong on that let me know (im sure you will) but im fairly certain thats how it works. Mind you its a bit late to go back once you attack someone. I would say that and his veto options mean he has considerable power.

As to the house of representatives, I got to admit I never hear anything about them in the news and it would seem to be the senate which is the decision making body. My reference to proportional representation really was about the Presidential race though I think its a good way for any election to be run.
The house of representatives is the law making body in Australia with the Senate acting as the reviewing and amending body. I couldnt get a great deal of info on exactly what powers your house of representatives does, care to educate me?

No i dont think those people should be appointed by politicians, they should apply for and have to have appropriate qualifications just like any regular job. Elected officials are by definition political and often not qualified from what ive seen. Here there are standard rules for a government job, you have to have 3 people, one expert in the area, one from the same organisation but from a different area of it and one totally indepentant person. A set of minimum qualifications have to be met then those candidates are interviewed. All are asked the same questions to insure impartiality. That seems to work fine and you dont have a million and one pointless elections.

For all  you sausage lovers and check the last bit

Sausage History

The word sausage originally comes from the Latin word salsus, which means salted or preserved. In the days of old people did not have refrigeration to preserve their meat and so making sausage was a way of overcoming this problem.

Dry sausage was born as a result of the discovery of new spices, which helped to enhance, flavor and preserve the meat. Different countries and different cities within those countries started producing their own distinctive types of sausage, both fresh and dry. These different types of sausage were mostly influenced by the availability of ingredients as well as the climate.

Some parts of the world with periods of cold climate, such as northern Europe were able to keep their fresh sausage without refrigeration, during the cold months. They also developed a process of smoking the sausage to help preserve the meat during the warmer months. The hotter climates in the south of Europe developed dry sausage, which did not need refrigeration at all.

Basically people living in particular areas developed their own types of sausage and that sausage became associated with the area. For example Bologna originated in the town of Bologna in Northern Italy, Lyons sausage from Lyons in France and Berliner sausage from Berlin in Germany.

(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 1:14 pm on Oct. 9, 2004)

[Zutroy]

The amount of represenation is exactly the same in australia as it is in the US - each state gets the same number of senators and the house seats are divided up based on population. Instead of having a prime minister, we have a speaker of the house in the house of representatives and a majority leader in the senate. Their function is to set the agenda for congress.

All spending related bills must originate in the house of representatives. They then go to the senate for review then, if they pass both houses, they have to reconcile the two version into one that gets sent to the president. The president can then veto it if he chooses - however, if it gets over 2/3's approval in both the house and senate, it cannot be veto'd.

One of the fundamental problems with the australian government is that there's no major distinction between the legislative and executive branches. The party that controls congress will also control the excutive branch - meaning that any legislation that gets introduced by the majorty party will almost always be passed. In the US, the president's veto power serves as sort of a "last resort" - this is especially important if the president is of a different party than the majority party in congress.

Another concern is, on paper, the powers of the Governer-General are pretty scary. In practice, he probably functions as more of a rubber stamp than a head of state but there's still the huge potential for corruption. Moreso, he gets to decide when elections are held on the advice of the PM (who's party already controls the country). The australian constitution only guarantees "frequent" elections, which is easily open to abuse - unlike the US constitution which states exactly the period of time these elections will be held (2 years for house members, 6 years for senators, 4 years for the president).

Whether or not the normal punishment is just "a small fine", the law says you can be imprisioned for not voting. In my opinion, that's extremely un-democratic. If you don't like the candidates running and your vote is "no vote" then that's your right to do so in the US. You know, I'm not aware if Australia even has an equivalent to the bill of rights that guarantees certain personal freedoms like freedom of speech - please inform me if it does.

I believe you're correct about the president committing to war for 3 months without congressional approval (although it may be only 1 month, I'll have to look it up). If the congress doesn't approve, the funding for the war dries up and there's really no way to continue it. I'm not sure if the original intention was to make it easier for the president to quell uprisings in colonial times (convening congress back then took alot longer than it does now) or if it was a checks-and-balances thing.

Finally, I'm not exactly sure what point it serves to interview "3 people, one expert in the area, one from the same organisation but from a different area of it and one totally indepentant person." Who determines which one of those 3 gets the job?

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Actually proportional representation wasnt what i meant to say in my original statement, rather I should have said preferential voting. Which is a far better system than that used in the US. However your senate isnt proportianal voting in any case and from I have seen and been told by Americans that is where the real power resides. All Australians vote for all senators though only half are elected at any time. Our spending bills originate in the house of representatives which in fact is the house which decides who holds government. We also have a speaker of the house though it is simply a person who implements the rules of the parliment during sittings. The prime minister is the leader of the ruling party but on his own cant do anything really other than advise the Governor General. The Senate rarely ever rubber stamps anything the reps send up. Due to all Australians voting for senators they represent all interests and the Government of the day rarely controls the senate completely.

All our elections are done with preferential voting, this means if you had Bush Kerry and Nader and Bush got 40% of the vote, Kerry 35% and Nader 20% then since Nader didnt get enough primary votes to win outright his votes would be redistributed where people had so chose a second preference between Kerry and Bush. So if someone voted Nader 1 and Kerry second that vote would go to Kerry, Same deal if they voted Nader 1 Bush 2 it would go to Bush. Its a good system because you can vote for who you want to and still be part of the decision between the final two candidates.  The lack of this type of vote is one of the biggest weaknesses in the US system IMO. I suspect Nader would get a much bigger vote than people think if you had such a system of voting and you wouldnt be locked into basically two choices of dubious value like  you are.

I would imagine that getting a 2/3 majority in both your houses of government would be nigh on impossible on any truly contentious issue and ive heard of a lot of vetoes in the past.

I dont agree with your contention that the party which is in power controlling the executive branch is a bad thing, not that we have anything called that though i take your point. Im no admirer of the American system of separating the executive and elected branchs of government. Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all. You cant get much more undemocratic than that. Having the president have the power of veto makes no sense either since it once again takes power away from the people who were elected. In fact, given that all states send the same number of senators, and the only really proportianal representation comes from the house of reps (the weakest house in the US the strongest in Australia) the people dont get much say at all do they.

With regard to elections they are mandated but only in terms of the maximum term the government can run. 3 years for the reps and a half election of the senate every 6 years. Governments can and frequently do call them early though there is a growing trend to run almost the full term because people dont like them calling early elections when they think they have a better chance. There is no way to abuse the calling of elections other than to have them more frequently so not sure what your getting at there.

The governor general only acts on the advice of the PM and actually has no scary powers at all. He can disband parliment but only if the parliment is unworkable (ie no party has a clear majority and supply has been blocked) which results in a general election. Thats his biggest power and its only been exercised once when the CIA sponsorered a plot to discredit the then Whitlam Government and the opposition blocked supply as a result. Something immortialised in the book and movie "the Falcon and the Snowman" about the two CIA agents whose consciouses got the better of them causing them to expose it. Believe me that episode earned the US no favour here. Even in that instance the GG acted on the advice of the caretaker PM. The GG was acting on behalf of the US however since he happened to be an ex MI5 agent who had been the Washington officer of that organisatin. Within the bounds of that however he still acted within the rules of law, but with the CIA campaign to discredit the Whitlam government the general election was lost to the government of the day. Just another example of the constant meddling in other countries affairs which the USA partakes in.

I totally dissagree with you on the question of compulsory voting, (a) there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about requiring your citizens to vote, in fact nothing could be more democratic and i cant see how you could possibly argue it isnt. Certinaly having a tiny % of your population vote, which is the case in America is not democratic and cant ever be said to be when the majority of your population doesnt exercise an opinion. (b) IMO everyone should consider a responsibility and a right to vote, its not an onerous thing and is certainly a very small thing to require for the privelage of being a citizen. (c) Pretty much no one here minds that they have to vote, generally voting here can be done in 5 minutes, we dont use electronic machines because of the inherant security risks and voting booths are widespread and easily accessable. Results are known the same night or next day for the election too. Ie it seems to be a lot more efficently run than the US equivalent where recently in New Orleans half the voting booths didnt have voting machines till just an hour or so before the closing of votes.

No we dont have a bill of rights, it was put to the Australian people about 10 years ago in a referendum along with some modifications to the constitution and defeated. Referendums require 75% of all people to agree to be passed. While i would like to see one myself i would hate it to encompass some of the provisions of the US bill or rights such as the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy. In practise even though we dont have one we enjoy greater freedoms and a better rule of law than the US especially since the advent of your Patriot Acts 1 and 2.

With regard to the interview process, the committee as a whole decides on who the best candidate is from those who have met the essential criteria. The essential criteria makes sure the person is qualified for the job and the independancy of the candidates means that a group of people from within the particular section cant pre select someone that may have been temping in the job and whom they have become friendly with. It ensures impartiality in the selection process.

We have here an independant commision against corruption which in the event of any person company or government member acting in a corrupt fashion can investigate and charge them. Bush would be a gonna if  you had he same i think.

(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 12:52 am on Oct. 10, 2004)

(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 12:58 am on Oct. 10, 2004)

(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 8:09 am on Oct. 10, 2004)

[Zutroy]

"I totally dissagree with you on the question of compulsory voting"

So there's nothing un-democratic about throwing people in jail for demonstrating their displeasure with the candidates running for office? I believe you're being completely unreasonable in your outlook on this; it's an archiac law from the WW1 era that needs to go.

"Results are known the same night or next day for the election too. Ie it seems to be a lot more efficently run than the US equivalent where recently in New Orleans half the voting booths didnt have voting machines till just an hour or so before the closing of votes."

You're forgetting that the US has almost 15 times the population of Australia. The odds that some problems are going to occur is much greater. Even still, our election returns are known the same night or the next day. The only reason why they weren't in the past was because the numbers were so close that there was a required recount.

"I dont agree with your contention that the party which is in power controlling the executive branch is a bad thing, not that we have anything called that though i take your point."

Having a different party in control of the executive branch helps control govt spending. Unless you like to pay high taxes, I don't see why that would be a good thing.

"Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all."

The senate has to approve all of the president's cabinet members by a simple majority. At the time, the democrats were in control of the senate so Bush's picks didn't get a free ride into office. As far as the 'incompetent' part, well that's just you blinding hating Bush again.

"All Australians vote for all senators though only half are elected at any time."

So everyone gets to vote for which senator represents X state? How is that fair? The idea behind representative government is that you elect people who represent YOU, not some other state.

"Having the president have the power of veto makes no sense either since it once again takes power away from the people who were elected."

the president is elected.

"We have here an independant commision against corruption which in the event of any person company or government member acting in a corrupt fashion can investigate and charge them."

We do too, what's your point? Just because you naively believe everything bad said about Bush doesn't mean it's true.

"While i would like to see one myself i would hate it to encompass some of the provisions of the US bill or rights such as the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy. In practise even though we dont have one we enjoy greater freedoms and a better rule of law than the US especially since the advent of your Patriot Acts 1 and 2. "

I'm not going to get into the gun debate issue with you, but there's alot of other articles in the Bill of Rights I'm sure you agree with and wish Australia had. I find it distressing that the Australian people would turn down such an opportunity to secure their own rights. And please detail for me some of the "greater freedoms" you're allowed to enjoy.

"With regard to the interview process, the committee as a whole decides on who the best candidate is from those who have met the essential criteria."

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this point because I still don't completely understand your system on this. I don't get where these "independent" commission members come from or how the candidates are even chosen.

(Edited by Zutroy at 10:34 am on Oct. 10, 2004)

[Caohmin]

"I totally dissagree with you on the question of compulsory voting,(a) there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about requiring your citizens to vote, in fact nothing could be more democratic and i cant see how you could possibly argue it isnt. Certinaly having a tiny % of your population vote, which is the case in America is not democratic and cant ever be said to be when the majority of your population doesnt exercise an opinion."

So you're saying there's nothing wrong with compulsory voting because you think there's nothing wrong with compulsory voting.

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/petitio.asp

"(b) IMO everyone should consider a responsibility and a right to vote, its not an onerous thing and is certainly a very small thing to require for the privelage of being a citizen.

(c) Pretty much no one here minds that they have to vote, generally voting here can be done in 5 minutes, we dont use electronic machines because of the inherant security risks and voting booths are widespread and easily accessable."

None of your 'reasons' address Ross' point, they completely sidestep it: If neither candidate is suitable, you don't have to vote for either; your vote is 'no vote.' Further, how can a society be 'more democratic' if you can be fined/jailed for choosing not to vote, a valid expression of an opinion. You have essentially one less freedom than we do, in this instance.

[Axecleaver]

> your senate... is where the real power resides.

There is power in each of the three branches of our government, the legislative (Congress, composed of the Senate and House of Representatives), the executive (President and Vice President) and the Judicial (Supreme Court). It isn't true to say one branch has more or less power than the other although over time, the balance shifts -- line item veto, for example, took power away from the Legislative branch and transfered it to the Executive. The War Powers Act took power  from the Executive and gave it to the Legislative branch. (This is the "inform congress within 48 hours of committing troops" thing you guys were talking about)

> the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy

If you make the mistake, like many Americans do, of assuming that the second amendment is about hunting and clinging to a bygone age of masculinity then you fail to frame a clear understanding of the importance of this part of the bill of rights. The second amendment puts the power of revolution into the hands of a populace so that they cannot be tyrranized by their government. When you realize that this is the entire point of the amendment, it should make a lot more sense to you.

> the power of veto makes no sense either

This has to do with the balance of power built into the three branches of government and is a critical component to establishing that balance. I actually think it is quite elegant.

[Zutroy]

"None of your 'reasons' address Ross' point"

hey! that was my point

(Edited by Zutroy at 4:47 pm on Oct. 10, 2004)