Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Calling all Yanks in Ireland….
Tomorrow is the big day for Americans voting in the first stages of the Presidential election. It’s in Iowa, and voting there comes down to the strangely quaint, 18th Century confines of a Caucus: that is you declare your vote publicly. Indeed, if you are American (or even if you aren’t I guess), Richard Delevan has established the Ireland Caucus, so that denizens of our good isle can declare their intentions remotely. Voting ends at midnight our time, so that the Ireland Caucus will declare before Iowa! For a running commentary on events up to Super Tuesday, you can pick up Richard’s take on Brassneck.
Mick Fealty @ 02:17 PM
I prefer the term Irish back from exile myself. ;]
Anywho, thanks for the link. Should be an interesting election this time around.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 06:32 PMStrange old system ain’t it. Quite like the idea of these village meeting type caucuses. But fundamentally a “democratic” process that could well lead to members of two families governing for 28 consecutive years seems to be corrupt. Too much cash - they should restrict the spend rather than the raising of the money perhaps.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 08:39 PMStrange old system ain’t it.
We used to have a roughly similar system. Poor people were denied the vote, and the aristoracy rigged the result to go their way anyway. We did away with it, but they still need to catch up.
Too much cash - they should restrict the spend rather than the raising of the money perhaps.
They have the wrong end of the stick in the USA. They think that things are more democratic if you have more elected representatives, and if the electorate are consulted over more decisions. I think it’s more important to start with the basics, like making sure the votes are counted properly and are not subject to partisan interference; and having an electoral system that ensures that people are properly represented. First past the post voting is completely wrong in a country so large and diverse.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 09:39 PMAll sense Joseph - 2000 election was stolen as plainly as Kenya’s. What did Al Gore say ? Something like “the only escalation past the Supreme Court is insurrection”. Participation rates pathetic also despite massive advertising.
I also despise the superficial cleverness of it all. I swear Barrack planted “the he’s not really black” stories in order to subliminally reassure the white electorate.
Will be interesting to see how Ron Paul does in the republican caucus however. Despite his pathetic poll ratings his campaign’s theory is that his supporters do not have land phone lines and thus not picked up by polls…..
Mccain my bet for republican nominee and reckon the Clinton machine will come through whatever tomorrow’s result. Whether those predictions as good as my World Cup ones time will tell…Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:06 PM‘What did Al Gore say ?’
Err….“I invented the internet”,
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”<cackle>
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:22 PM<cackle> indeed Bob - and the inspiration for “Love Story” - Seriously, real shame for humanity that he was cheated - or do u think it was fair and square ????
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:25 PMDewi,
The Democrats and the Republicans both have a vested interest in keeping the daft system there, so in no way am I speaking from a pro-Democrat point of view. The Democrats have, in the past, benefitted from electoral irregularities in the same way that the Republicans did in 2000 and again in 2004 - most famously with JFK, I believe. I just cannot conceive how people can sit there and watch vested interests interfere with the electoral registers and the count, and still regard it as a fair vote.
Ron Paul will fail utterly. The electoral system is such that only candidates who can win the support of the political establishment will be elected. I’m not alleging some kind of black helicopter conspiracy stuff (I think Ron Paul’s policies are dangerous when taken to their logical conclusion, never mind the fact that I disagree with him), just that he will fail to win the necessarily influential friends to ensure he has the right exposure. At any rate, I don’t think most Americans buy his patronizing nonsense about eliminating the IRS. How will the hole in federal funds be filled ? Stuff will have to be cut, or other taxes will have to be raised.
I agree with you about McCain, it’ll be either him or Romney. I do not think Clinton will win the nomination, she’s too scary and her policies have too many holes. Many Democrats will abstain rather than elect her. Still, at least now I understand why she didn’t ditch Bill over the blowjob.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:28 PMBob,
Err….“I invented the internet”
Nope, he said that he created the internet. Which, in fact, he did. If you’re going to quote the guy, at least get it right.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:30 PMComrade Stalin: “They have the wrong end of the stick in the USA. They think that things are more democratic if you have more elected representatives, and if the electorate are consulted over more decisions. I think it’s more important to start with the basics, like making sure the votes are counted properly and are not subject to partisan interference; “
The pendulum swings back and forth, between full inclusion and clean elections. The rise of the Irish as part of the political class started during a period of maximum inclusion, back when a bearded Irishman was worth four votes or so. No matter the rules, there will be those on both sides who will try to play games—for instance, in 2000, it was all but a foot-race to see which side would go to court first.
Meanwhile, in the UK, we have a system where winning, what, less than 40% of the vote, garners, what, 60%+ of the seats.
Every system has its flaws and oddities.
Dewi: “2000 election was stolen as plainly as Kenya’s. What did Al Gore say ? Something like “the only escalation past the Supreme Court is insurrection”. Participation rates pathetic also despite massive advertising. “
Bollocks. Re-counts found no evidence that Gore had the majority of the vote. Watching some of the video of the recount did nothing for either sides reputation. The problematic ballot was designed by a Democrat and, frankly, if anything, Gore is bitter that his scheme to dump the military absentee ballots was spiked by his own vp.
But then, dewi, why let the facts get in the way.
Dewi: ” and the inspiration for “Love Story” - Seriously, real shame for humanity that he was cheated - or do u think it was fair and square ???? “
I think that Gore ran a mediocre campaign against a mediocre candidate with an exemplary campaign behind him. Gore complaint, given the practices of the Democratic party, amounts, at worst, that the GOP stole what Gore considered to be his by right of prior theft. Besides, it’s a little hard to feel too sympathetic—only an idiot puts the son of Boss Daley in front of a television camera to try and sell the notion of a stolen election.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:42 PMDread - u are wrong about the recounts - they were stopped by local republicans - I’ll find some stuff tomorrow - nos da.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 10:51 PMdewi: “Dread - u are wrong about the recounts - they were stopped by local republicans”
Loosen the tin-foil hat, Dewi. The ballots, being public documents, were counted even after the conclusion of Bush v. Gore. The recount that Gore requested would have granted Bush victory by 500+ votes. Even the count of all counties undervotes gave Bush victory by 400+ votes.
It is only when you get into things outside the realm of Gore’s request and a little alchemy (counting “overvotes”—votes where more than one candidate is indicated—dimpled chads and the like) that Gore starts to pull ahead, all of which were beyond the Florida courts orders.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:06 PMSo you have to publicly declare your party affiliation and publicly select your prefered candidate before the election even begins. Then the public gets a chance to vote?
That’s a democracy?
It’s academic to me, anyhow. I don’t care if the whip for backs is head in their left or right hand, I just care about the whip. I don’t see anyone voting to stop whipping
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:07 PMDread,
The pendulum swings back and forth, between full inclusion and clean elections.
How do you know whether an election is clean or not ? We don’t even know whether or not the votes were properly counted. When there’s an issue over a result, there is no satisfactory mechanism for investigating and fixing it, so it ends up going to the Supreme Court to make up the rules as they go along. The US legal setup imposes a time limit on getting the result, which provides an impetus to provide any result at the expense of providing the right one. Leaving aside the issue that it underfunds the electoral system ..
Meanwhile, in the UK, we have a system where winning, what, less than 40% of the vote, garners, what, 60%+ of the seats.
The UK FPTP system is shite. But at least the votes are counted properly; they’re known within a day of the polls closing. And when impropriety is suspected, all of the candidates usually proceed on a fair play basis (as Pat Buchanan did). In the USA in 2000, instead of recognizing how damaging the problems in Florida were, the respective party political machines both stepped in and brazenly tried to swing things their way, excluding results that damaged them, and talking up matters which benefitted them. The Republicans were at this to a far greater extent, especially in the form of Katherine Harris.
The USA electoral system has serious faults. For a country claiming to be the standard bearer of democracy, to the point of using military force to attempt to implement it abroad, this is hardly acceptable.
Every system has its flaws and oddities.
Yeah, but at least most of us in the west manage to count the goddam votes properly.
Bollocks. Re-counts found no evidence that Gore had the majority of the vote.
Which is wrong; several unofficial recounts have shown that Gore would have won. At best, the result is disputed, and Al Gore was a wimp for conceding it (and I do agree with you that he ran a crap campaign - it should have been a walk-in). But either way, it is not the point. The count result was never formally addressed. The recount was stopped by the US Supreme Court. What’s more, the USSC was split right down the middle, so it was hardly a decisive thing. There are no two ways to put this - it is fundamentally anti-democratic to stop a recount in a disputed election. I don’t care which party it is. And the fact that Al Gore may or may not have tried to swing the military absentee ballots his way is not the point. The point is, why has he got any say in the first place ? This should be dealt with by an accountable independent commission or board, not as a result of which party has the best lobbyists or lawyers.
Gore complaint, given the practices of the Democratic party, amounts, at worst, that the GOP stole what Gore considered to be his by right of prior theft.
Reasonable enough, given that the Republican campaign co-chairwoman was involved actively and illegally arranging to strike likely Democrat voters from the electoral register. Why would she have done that if she was sure that the result would have been favourable ? Over here, this would get you a jail term. There, people seem to be indifferent. It’s amazing that the Republicans don’t seem to think their reputation might be effected by the suggestion that they are occupying their elected positions through illegal votes, whether or not they were part of the conspiracy.
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:25 PMDread,
According to this article, Gore would have won by several measures. In elections here, the electoral officer gets to examine ballots in order to determine the intention of the voter, even if the voter didn’t strictly obey the instructions - if, for example, they underlined the desired candidate instead of putting a X next to his/her name. You may dismiss that as “alchemy”, but there are reasonable ways to work this matter out, rather than insisting that a mark which cannot be read by the optical machine, or which didn’t fully depress the hole in the ballot, cannot be counted as a vote.
Moreover, the point about the recount as requested by Gore seems to be moot. Why do candidates get to pick which areas should be recounted ? If there was an issue with the vote counting, the whole state should have been recounted. A UK-wide manual recount would take less than one day to complete, a small price to pay in exchange for providing public reassurance that the system is working. How can a democratic system be said to be sound if the politicians are able to deploy lawyers over the most minor issues of vote-counting to force the result their way ?
Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:33 PMYeah lets just recount the tory seats again and again until we get rid of them forever.
Wise up .Gore had a clear majority of the popular vote.If you win a state by 1 vote you win the entire electoral votes for that state.If you won Alaska,Hawaii,and California by 1 vote in each state it would not matter if you won New York by 5 million votes-you would be behind-even though you had a majority of the popular vote.Posted by on Jan 02, 2008 @ 11:55 PMDread..
Spot on. NO factual evidence of that election foolishness. Al Gore ‘created’ the internet ?
Global warming anything but a scam? One common thread…
Al Gore….
Any adult with reading comprehension skills and an open mind can find the facts that show this man and his sycophants as complete frauds…Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 12:15 AMBush won the 2000 election fair and square by the rules all candidates had agreed to before the election. If the incumbent vice president of a hugely popular two-term presidency couldn’t beat the stupid, drunken cow-poke from Texas (actually a myth of course, Bush has a very impressive academic record from Yale and Harvard, much better than Gore who flunked theology college) then it ill behoves his supporters to start whining about “stolen” elections especially from a party whose most illustrious president really did steal the election from Richard Nixon in 1960.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 01:55 AMKennedy did at least have a majority of the popular vote.Bush was selected rather than elected.Last election you were getting a skull and bones man regardless of whether you voted for Bush or Kerry.In American elections the candidates must conform to get selected once they all conform -it is much of a muchness- bilderberger ,one world government,new world order etc….
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 02:08 AMAw jaysus, Danny please spare us the Bilderberg stuff or the black helicopters will be hovering overhead soon.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 04:39 AMBush has a very impressive academic record from Yale and Harvard
Yeah, and there’s no way he would have got into the Skull and Bones if that pseud ‘lonesome cowpoke’ accent was how he really spoke.
especially from a party whose most illustrious president really did steal the election from Richard Nixon in 1960
To be fair, Comrade Stalin did mention exactly that up the thread.
The US seems to have… er… issues with the ‘nuts and bolts’ fair conduct of elections in a way that most other established democracies don’t. Three things strike me as being particularly weak as a political hack from another country:
* People waiting for **hours** outside polling stations. I mean, where the fuck are we talking about here? Equatorial Guinea or something? Although turnout rises and falls, in General Elections in Presidential Years it has never been as low as foreigners thought (rising from 50% or so to the low 60s% in recent years) and demand for ballots ought to be predictable and manageable. Even at peak times, no-one, nowhere, should be waiting more than 15 minutes to vote. Don’t think this happens anywhere in Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.
* Fancy ballots. Too much dicking about with voting machines - mechanical and electronic - which go wrong and sap voter confidence. What is wrong with a pencil and paper?
* Legacy of Jim Crow and Mayor Daley. In many US States, voting is treated as a privillege rather than a right. In too many jurisdictions, there are too many grounds on which adult citizens can be struck off the register. It creates a minefield of competing claims, graveyards full of voters and legitimate voters being struck off.
Oh, and too many lawyers but that’s hardly just an American problem these days…
or the black helicopters will be hovering overhead soon.
You mean they aren’t already?
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 08:02 AMBob:
Spot on. NO factual evidence of that election foolishness.
Actually there is, but I notice you’re not big on facts, or on rebuttals. The election is disputed, and by the standards prevalent in the UK and Ireland it would probably have been ruled void by the High Court. That said, given the role of partisan figures in the US electoral system, it’s likely that the whole thing would be void.
Al Gore ‘created’ the internet ?
Yes, he did, by putting the appropriate legislation through Congress. The Internet (originally a Defence project) would not have existed in it’s current form without it.
Harry :
Bush won the 2000 election fair and square by the rules all candidates had agreed to before the election.
No he didn’t. Republican party officials eliminating legitimate voters from the ballot was not part of the deal. Likewise, the unprecedented 5-4 SCOTUS intervention in the recount decision by the Florida Supreme Court was not part of the deal either (it’s interesting to compare the voting in the USSC with alignment to the party which is most commonly heard talking about “state’s rights”). Not only should there have been a recount, but both parties should have voluntarily backed a re-run of the election should have been re-run on agreed rules in the interests of preserving the reputation of the democratic system. Instead both parties tried to swing the chaos in their way, and the Democrats just didn’t have the friends required to make it work. Had Clinton had one more USSC appointment, the result could have been completely different, which is crazy.
actually a myth of course, Bush has a very impressive academic record from Yale and Harvard, much better than Gore who flunked theology college
My recollection is that both institutions were reluctant to provide details of GWB’s actual grades. Nonetheless, I don’t know how the hell you get through Yale and Harvard without having the ability to string two sentences together. There are web pages full of “Bushisms”. It doesn’t say a lot for the reputation of either of those places. It also doesn’t help that GWB was an utter failure at business and had to be bailed out by daddy’s friends on at least one occasion.
it ill behoves his supporters to start whining about “stolen” elections especially from a party whose most illustrious president really did steal the election from Richard Nixon in 1960.
I find it very disturbing when, in the course of an argument about the validity of an election result, people invoke a previous unsettled disputed election in an attempt to counter accusations of a presently disputed one. The central point here is that the electoral system in the USA is badly broken. It was broken in 1960 and it is still broken now. You cannot have a democracy where there are disputes over how the votes are counted. If it were me, I’d throw away all these automated vote-counting machines and go right back to a pencil and a piece of paper. Automated vote counting is where most of these problems come from.
Aw jaysus, Danny please spare us the Bilderberg stuff or the black helicopters will be hovering overhead soon.
The Bilderberg and Skull & Crossbones stuff is a diversion (it’s funny how people argue that Kerry ran a crap campaign out of deference to Bush’s fraternity in this organization. Why didn’t it work the other way around ?). The main problem is that the electoral system is broken. A secondary problem is that the Democratic party are crap; they’re too afraid to seem too different from the Republicans in case it scares people. They’ve had so many opportunities to stake themselves out given their Senate majority, and they’ve failed to use it. They’re about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 08:09 AMI voted for funding that created the internet
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 10:13 AMComrade Stalin: “Which is wrong; several unofficial recounts have shown that Gore would have won.”
Not under the conditions requested by the Gore campaign and agreed by the Florida Supreme Court. Oh, and most Gore scenario’s require unreasonable standards, such as trying to count “over-votes,” where more than one candidate is indicated. As a minimum, Gore would have had to have asked for a full recount, rather than being a cute whore and only asking for a recount of the three most liberal counties in the state.
Comrade Stalin: “The count result was never formally addressed. The recount was stopped by the US Supreme Court.”
Primarily b/c the Florida Supreme Court was playing silly buggers, trying to warp the laws and rules in place to conform to a seemingly pre-determined and desired outcome.
Comrade Stalin: “Moreover, the point about the recount as requested by Gore seems to be moot. Why do candidates get to pick which areas should be recounted ?”
Rules of the process at the time, Comrade. The states get to regulate elections within the state—one of the few vestiges of what was once a weak central government system in the states. Changing the rules after the fact amounts to ex post facto law and is highly susceptible to mischief.
Danny O’Connor: “Gore had a clear majority of the popular vote”
Not material on a national level, as Presidents are not elected on the popular vote. As for the state of Florida, it is a point at best in dispute, depending upon the standard employed.
Danny O’Connor: “If you win a state by 1 vote you win the entire electoral votes for that state.”
Not entirely true, as there are a few states that allocate electors pro-rata, such as Maine.
Danny O’Connor: “Kennedy did at least have a majority of the popular vote.”
Doesn’t matter—it is a majority of votes in the electoral college that decides matters, not the popular vote. Throw in the corruption in Chicago / Cook County, where the dead don’t merely walk, but vote, and your argument is shaky, at best. Not one gets sympathy for putting one of Boss Daley’s boys in front of a camera to flak the charge of a stolen election.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 01:09 PMComrade Stalin: “I find it very disturbing when, in the course of an argument about the validity of an election result, people invoke a previous unsettled disputed election in an attempt to counter accusations of a presently disputed one.”
It is difficult to take seriously the wheezes of a thief when he complains something was stolen from him. Gore horribly mis-managed the process, from putting Daley’s son as his initial lead on the issue to trying to be cute with a limited re-count to pushing to invalidate military absentee ballots while trying to count in as many invalid votes as possible added to his column—undervotes, overvotes, dimpled chads, hanging chads, et al and ad nauseum.
Comrade Stalin: “The central point here is that the electoral system in the USA is badly broken. It was broken in 1960 and it is still broken now.”
Please—its been broken a hell of a lot longer than that. Ironically, most of the changes put in place (voting machines rather than paper ballots) were put in place to prevent the Democratic parties older cheats—Jim Crow, Tammany Hall, etc. The rise of the Irish-American in US politics started with 4 to a man voting and machine politics.
I would also point out it is the Democratic party that goes to great lengths to prevent new clean election laws being passed, such as the simple expedient of having to provide picture id when going to vote.
Comrade Stalin: “You cannot have a democracy where there are disputes over how the votes are counted.”
Elections are the baliwick of states and counties, not the Federal government. Likewise, any scheme is susceptible to manipulation.
Comrade Stalin: “If it were me, I’d throw away all these automated vote-counting machines and go right back to a pencil and a piece of paper.”
*sigh*
The joys of those too ignorant of history…
The paper and pencil ballot is just as susceptible to manipulation as automated voting machines. The practice for the Dems used to be to have vote grow beards, leastwise thems what could grow beards. They would then vote, change styles of facial hair and vote again… and again… and again, until bare-faced. Likewise, the Dem’s lack of support for requiring voter id smells of similar opportunism.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 01:26 PMC’mon guys.
Fighting over the 2000 result. Bah.Posted by on Jan 03, 2008 @ 01:43 PM
