The voice of reason.Originally Posted by Roto13
The voice of reason.
The 2000 election was a mess because the voting system in Florida was horrid.
2004 on the other hand has a high possibility of Fraud. I have seen sources, but unfortunalty I'll be lazy and show a quote from Wikipedia
Also a note is the same company provided the voting machines during Alaska's elections that resulted is Sarah Palin becoming Governor.
Yeah...so?If the Supreme Court had gone with Gore we would currently be talking about a movie of how Bush was gipped out of the White House.
Its a farce because America proclaims itself as the voice of democracy, yet its elections in 2000 showed how flawed their democratic system is. To this day, we still do not know who won the election. Essentially, the vote was cast by one woman - Katherine Harris. What is more, the film revealed all the mistakes that took place during the election. Consider this: If there had been a 5% difference in Florida, none of these huge problems would have come to light, such as thousands of people being prevented from voting, and so on. So how can we be confident in the election system in future years?How is American democracy a farce? They have measures in place to deal with issues such as those which arose in the 2000 election. Their issue was no bigger than many other countries have faced who are still considered democratic.
I understand they've changed the system in recent years, but its hard to be confident when you look back at the past. This too is combined with modern criticisms of the voting system, during the New Hampshire election, for example. My point is, the democratic vote counting systems in America are far from ideal. Its very possible that the UK does a better job. But whatever it is, America aint setting a good example. Thats for sure.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
Proud to be British.
I think the point is that we'd be having this conversation anyway. While I certainly would have preferred Gore as President (not simply because of a dislike of Bush but because I rather like Gore). Doesn't make it right, but I think the 2000 election would've been contentious which ever way it went.
No electoral system is perfect, even when it comes down to the different ways of voting each system has its own pros and cons. I mean, to use a British example, isn't it a bit unfair how the seats worked out in 2005? Labour 35.3% of the vote got 55.2% of the seats, Tories 32.3% of the vote got them 30.7% of the seats and the Lib Dems 22.1% of the vote got them 9% of the seats. Sadly there's no perfect or entirely fair electoral system out there.
Not my words Carol, the words of Top Gear magazine.
So I don't see what your point is. The US had an electoral question and it was resolved by the people the Constitution designated should resolve such questions. Whoever the SCOTUS chose, it was going to piss millions of people off. They were in a no-win situation, and tbh we all know that this kind of talk isn't motivated by genuine desires to improve democracy and fix problems, but out of a simple dislike of Bush.
Uh yes, we do, Bush won. You might not like it, but the SCOTUS had the authority to do what it did, and in so doing they created a legitimate winner. Bush didn't win the popular vote, but that's not necessary in American politics due to the way the electoral college works. Just because American democracy is imperfect doesn't mean it's farcical.Its a farce because America proclaims itself as the voice of democracy, yet its elections in 2000 showed how flawed their democratic system is. To this day, we still do not know who won the election.
If there had been a 5% difference in many states Gore wouldn't have needed Florida. What's your point?Consider this: If there had been a 5% difference in Florida, none of these huge problems would have come to light, such as thousands of people being prevented from voting, and so on. So how can we be confident in the election system in future years?
Nobody said they're ideal. But they're better than our system here, that's for darn sure. I live in Leicester East, which means my current MP is Keith Vaz (Lab). I detest Keith Vaz. I think he is a terrible politician whose presence in the Commons is damaging to Leicester and to Britain. However, let us suppose that although I dislike Keith Vaz I am a staunch Labour supporter. Let's suppose that I think Brown's just had some bad luck and is in fact a very good PM who deserves my votes, or let's suppose that the Thatcher years turned me off the Tories for life - if I want to vote Labour, that means I must vote Vaz. If I refuse to vote for Vaz, that means I can't vote Labour.My point is, the democratic vote counting systems in America are far from ideal. Its very possible that the UK does a better job. But whatever it is, America aint setting a good example. Thats for sure.
Tell me how that is a good system. America isn't perfect but nobody has been arguing that it is. But if you think it's a bad system because an election is questionable once or twice a century, well, you'll never be happy.
Holy crap I have no idea what you just said.
Thats not at all true. Katherine Harris prevented the recount from being completed, even though it required only two more hours. The reason: she's a Republican and so were here aides. If the recount had been completed in those extra two hours then they could have found out who actually won. In that sense, the President would have been democratically elected. But in reality, Bush was not democratically elected. Katherine Harris had the power to prevent democracy from happening and she did that.So I don't see what your point is. The US had an electoral question and it was resolved by the people the Constitution designated should resolve such questions. Whoever the SCOTUS chose, it was going to piss millions of people off. They were in a no-win situation, and tbh we all know that this kind of talk isn't motivated by genuine desires to improve democracy and fix problems, but out of a simple dislike of Bush.
My simple point is that it didnt have to to choose anyone. If they had waited two more hours, the official recounts would have showed who won. This is out of a genuine desire to improve democracy, and I would say the same had Gore been elected instead by similarly unfair methods.
Bush did not win democratically though. Which essentially means that America is not a proper democracy. The whole idea that one person can have such power to choose who is elected is inherently flawed.Uh yes, we do, Bush won. You might not like it, but the SCOTUS had the authority to do what it did, and in so doing they created a legitimate winner
It is facical, because as soon as this problem came to light, all the issues with the system were revealed.Bush didn't win the popular vote, but that's not necessary in American politics due to the way the electoral college works. Just because American democracy is imperfect doesn't mean it's farcical.
Firstly, the errors made by the machines used in areas of Florida were phenomenally high, and so the lead Bush supposedly had was well within the error bound, essentially making it meaningless. Secondly, thousands of people were prevented from voting as they were mistakenly registered as criminals. Thirdly, the laws referring to the runnings of the elections process are a mess, and each borough is isolated and disorganised. There are no clear standards - its pathetic really.
My point is this. Assume everything else was the same, but instead of Bush winning Florida by 0.05% or whatever, he won it by 5%. There would be no investigations and the flaws in the democratic system would not have come to light. Which makes you think - what flaws are there in other areas of America that we don't know about?If there had been a 5% difference in many states Gore wouldn't have needed Florida. What's your point?
Your missing my point. That flaw is a flaw in the voting ideology. Just like I could claim that the first past the post system is a flawed ideology which meant Bush won instead of Gore (Gore won the actual count by 500,000).Nobody said they're ideal. But they're better than our system here, that's for darn sure. I live in Leicester East, which means my current MP is Keith Vaz (Lab). I detest Keith Vaz. I think he is a terrible politician whose presence in the Commons is damaging to Leicester and to Britain. However, let us suppose that although I dislike Keith Vaz I am a staunch Labour supporter. Let's suppose that I think Brown's just had some bad luck and is in fact a very good PM who deserves my votes, or let's suppose that the Thatcher years turned me off the Tories for life - if I want to vote Labour, that means I must vote Vaz. If I refuse to vote for Vaz, that means I can't vote Labour.
Tell me how that is a good system. America isn't perfect but nobody has been arguing that it is. But if you think it's a bad system because an election is questionable once or twice a century, well, you'll never be happy.
But I'm not talking about the voting concepts, such as that. What I'm talking about is how those concepts are implemented. And I know for a fact that America did a terrible job at implementing those concepts as the counting was innaccurate, people were prevented from voting, and the system reflected the intent of the voter poorly, due to it having flaws (dimple chad, etc).
Do you understand the key difference. I'm not criticising the ideology behind the voting system, Im critisising how it was carried out.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
If you really want to change american democracy a world-wide Final Fantasy messege board is a horrible place to try.
...
Yes, and I am saying that a poorly executed election in a broadly good system is better than a well executed election in a heavily flawed system.
There is not a democracy on Earth which has not had a constitutional crisis at some point or other, whether in elections or something else. I don't approve of how the US government dealt with the crisis in 2000, but I don't think it's the end of democracy, or of US democracy, or that it demonstates some fundamental and unfixable flaw in their system. I want better in the future, but that's the way of it. Political systems evolve as they make mistakes.
200% PWNAGE! LMAO
FFX-2 FMV's Upscaled and Filtered to 720p (link fixed)
The games I've beaten...
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | X-2 | XII
I find our representative democracy very flawed. For one, not everyone's vote is equal. Myself, as a citizen of Ohio, a swing state with 20 electoral votes, my own vote can hold more of an effect on a presidential election than can any voter from a small state such as Wyoming or conversely a Republican voter in California or Democratic voter in Texas.
Wait, there is a Crisis? I thought things were going ok...
If you want to talk about how smurfed the political system is, try looking at a lower level. The analogy of politics as a game is especially apt in state senate elections, in which voting districts are constantly being modified to lump together or spread out voters in such a way as to minimize or maximize the advantage one party has in a particular region. It is, quite literally, a way to try to make your party's votes count more than the other's through petty manipulation of the law.
No. Just no.200% PWNAGE! LMAO
You could make that same comment in any debate topic, pretty much.
I dont really see how you can make either case...both are unacceptable. But then again, America's system is also rubbish because there is no voter equality as recent voters have pointed out.Yes, and I am saying that a poorly executed election in a broadly good system is better than a well executed election in a heavily flawed system.
And Azar is probably right, there must surely be more room for corruption at lower levels.
"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." - Barack Obama.
clicky clicky clicky
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
