votting

[Wintereis]

Thanks for your reply

First THERE IS NO SUCH NEWSPAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the 'The Times', you can add the suffix 'of London' if you wish. It was there before all the other Times newspapers. (Apologies for that rant but it something that really gets my goat.)


Although I would not use the word extreme, I would agree that I have much lower bar for what constitutes bad government than you (if lower is the correct word). For my perspective is only natural that peoples that have not recently experienced bad government start to consider governments that they are unhappy with as bad governments.

Well, since all the points you are trying to make a merely semantic, (needing reform vs. broken), (Times vs. London Times) I will assume that you really don't have much of an argument, at least not one you actually feel you need to define in certain terms.

And, by the way, if you don't indicate which Times you are talking about on this side of the Atlantic, people will assume you are talking about the New York Times. So, I'm not going to feel too bad about indicating that it was the London paper rather than the New York or Los Angeles paper.

As far as the Electoral College, there has never been an instance in American History when the Electoral College did not vote along the same lines as their state constituency. I cannot say if there was a significant number of people who forgot that there was an electoral college or not. Though, I would find it hard to believe since it is spoken about in great detail during every election and is taught in every school. In the 2000 election, people were unhappy with the Electoral College, that may be what you are referring to, but that was due to the fact that the popular vote went to Gore and the Electoral vote went to Bush.

As far as impeachment, no, they are not easily or lightly taken into consideration. There has never been a successful conviction through impeachment in the U.S. Though, Nixon would likely have been convicted for Water Gate if he had not resigned. But, Water Gate was far more grievous a transgression than Clinton's lie about having sex with an intern. There are probably several instances when a President should have been impeached and convicted, but was not, but the framers of the constitution preferred to aire on the side of caution lest the people's representative be removed by less than legitimate means.

[fredv3b]

Thanks for your reply.

Well, since all the points you are trying to make a merely semantic, (needing reform vs. broken)

Personally I feel there is a significant difference between the two terms. I apologise for nit-picking over the title of the newspaper is a personal hobby horse. I am perfectly well aware of the New York, LA, Straits Times etc.

In the 2000 election, people were unhappy with the Electoral College, that may be what you are referring to, but that was due to the fact that the popular vote went to Gore and the Electoral vote went to Bush.

With the greatest respect to those people what did they expect the Electoral College to do? The Electoral vote going in the opposite direction to the popular vote is an inevitable, albeit occasional, consequence of having an Electoral College. Or had those same folk always been against an Electoral College?

[Wintereis]

Thanks for your reply.



Personally I feel there is a significant difference between the two terms. I apologise for nit-picking over the title of the newspaper is a personal hobby horse. I am perfectly well aware of the New York, LA, Straits Times etc.



With the greatest respect to those people what did they expect the Electoral College to do? The Electoral vote going in the opposite direction to the popular vote is an inevitable, albeit occasional, consequence of having an Electoral College. Or had those same folk always been against an Electoral College?

I don't know if they were always against an eletoral college. How am I supposed to speak for millions of people? What I know is that the electoral college is a constitutional measure which requires an amendment to change it. This means that it would take a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate before it was sent to the States to be passed within their legislatures. I also know that I would rather have an electoral college following the popular vote of their state constituancy selecting my candidates than a political party doing it.

As far as there bing a difference, that is obvious, but one cannot argue such things without a deffinition of terms from both you, since it is your argument, and from those Americans who believed that the government is broken. Thus, the argument is really not worth persuing unless you want to do your own sociological study to determin how those people defined the word "broken" in this context.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen; U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens vote for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected.

Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever passed the Congress.

From Wikipedia.

A similar system to the catholic church, but I guess a bit more open then the Vatican.

At present Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals meeting in a Conclave, a secret ballot by a select few. The maximum number of Cardinal Electors allowed at any one time is 120, who can vote for a Pope.

- Sorry to use my own quote folks.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Depends if you consider 300-odd MPs to be a small group.

On the other hand a PM can be gotten rid of at any time, by a successful challenge within his own party or by a motion of no confidence.

Fred, it is when you consider the voting population of th UK, several millions I would guess. Regarding the removing of a PM, you are saying that he can only be removed by his fellow MPs and not by the public who voted him into parliment. We are stuck with him for the five year term if his party supports him.

[fredv3b]

I also know that I would rather have an electoral college following the popular vote of their state constituancy selecting my candidates than a political party doing it.

I am sorry you have lost me there. I thought the obvious alternative to the Electoral College was a direct popular election?

As for the the difference, I thought the meaning of broken as doesn't work any more (not merely not as well as it could, should or did work) was fairly clear, but evidently I am wrong about that.

[josephc]

it was mr brown and mr mandeison at ttescos in newcastle. i never went me i m votting for mrbroen!

[marshlander]

Joseph, I have had a bit of trouble deciding who to vote for too, but I've just come back from the polling station.

We had six candidates, Convervative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, United Kingdom Independence Party and <spit!> British National Party. Of these:
Conservative - sitting MP since 1983 (?) except for a single term of Labour a few years ago. Generally a good guy, but seriously in the wrong party as far as I'm concerned. Could I live with myself if I voted Tory? He will be returned whatever I vote, specially this time round.
Labour - hmm, an utter nutcase it would appear. Screaming Lord Sutch would have been a more reliable bet. This is the man who said a couple of days ago that Gordon Brown was the worst PM ever. What was the selection committee thinking? Even his mother, a city councillor sixty miles away, thinks he's unstable.
LibDem - still trying to work out what I think about him, his party and their policies.
Green- when I was a member of the Green Party about 25 years ago I stood in a local election when no one else in the group would do it. I really wanted to vote for this candidate in this constituency, but the Greens were the only party not to provide us with any information at all, so last night I looked on TheyWorkForYou Election: It's job interview time for your next MP! to see if he had a presence there. Indeed he had answered the questionnaire (which was more than most of the others had done), but his responses were so at odds with the Green Party with which I was once familiar I had to check the average responses of other members of the party in other constituencies to see if party policy had really changed so dramatically. Sadly it looked like we had someone who was again "rather individual", a loose cannon (a dark green concept, to be honest) or completely out of touch with the current Green agenda. Just about the only identifiable point of contact was his view on the significance of climate change. :confused: Even so, I was seriously thinking about giving him my X, but when I looked at the voting paper he was the only candidate not to have given a contact address. No information sounds a lot like no commitment, so sorry, I couldn't do it.
UKIP - A racist by any other name is still a racist.
BNP - sorry, honey it ain't ever going to happen

Last evening I re-read all the literature that came through the door. It is extraordinary that candidates want our vote on the basis that they either give us misleading information or miss out the stuff that is really going to make a difference to our lives were they to get in. Today I went to the polling station in our village hall and couldn't find my card. I had to give no proof of who I said I was. We are sending people to oversee elections in other countries and our standards would not meet the standards we require of others. I am feeling disillusioned already :frown:

[fredv3b]

Labour - hmm, an utter nutcase it would appear. Screaming Lord Sutch would have been a more reliable bet. This is the man who said a couple of days ago that Gordon Brown was the worst PM ever. What was the selection committee thinking? Even his mother, a city councillor sixty miles away, thinks he's unstable.

Its people like him who make me think I could get myself selected. :confused:

[marshlander]

Its people like him who make me think I could get myself selected. :confused:

I'd vote for you, Fred