NationStates Jolt Archive

Well...then look at point two...

Anyway, I haven't crunched the numbers to find the highest percentage yet, but a presidential candidate can get 55 Electoral votes out of 538 despite winning at least 56% of the vote (and I'm guessing that percentage can go as high as 65-70ish)

the founding fathers put many checks and ballances in our system. the EC is just one of them. they did there best to make it idiot proof.

When the founding fathers created the EC, there was an infinite number of representatives and one was assigned for every 50,000 citizens, but now that we have a limited number of representatives, some of them represent up to 750,000 people, while some represent much less. If every Representative represented approximately the same number of people (and they're districts in some instances would transcend state lines since those don't really matter as much when it comes to representatives) then I might be willing to accept the EC as the gap would be lessened.

In fact the electorates can even vote against what the people in their state voted on.

That *may* not be true. If I'm remembering correctly, some state election codes have been written in such a way that the nominee *must* match the name on the ballot.

CA Election Code:


6901. Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100,
7300, 7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified
list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President of the
United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for
elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of
State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice
President of the several political parties to be placed upon the
ballot for the ensuing general election.



6906. The electors, when convened, if both candidates are alive,
shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person
for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the
candidates of the political party which they represent, one of whom,
at least, is not an inhabitant of this state.


Basically I think this says, "Electors have to supply a name before the election, and if you win, you have to write that name down when you cast your vote". Electors aren't voters, but the folks we voters actually are voting for.

CA is all or nothing:


6902. At the general election in each leap year, or at any other
time as may be prescribed by the laws of the United States, there
shall be chosen by the voters of the state as many electors of
President and Vice President of the United States as the state is
then entitled to.



15505. On the first Monday in the month following the election, or
as soon as the results have been received from all the counties in
the state, if received before that time, the Secretary of State shall
analyze the votes given for presidential electors, and certify to
the Governor the names of the proper number of persons having the
highest number of votes. The Secretary of State shall thereupon
issue and transmit to each presidential elector a certificate of
election. The certificate shall be accompanied by a notice of the
time and place of the meeting of the presidential electors and a
statement that each presidential elector will be entitled to a per
diem allowance and mileage in the amounts specified.


There could be more, because the California code is a living nightmare. State wide ballot measures change the damn thing almost as fast as the legislature rewrites it. :)

1) California has no where near half the population of the United States, much less more than half.
2) A president can say whatever he wants but laws and such can not be passed by a president. He is an executive, not a legistlator. California still only get 2% of the say in the senate and about 8% of the say in the House of Representatives.
3) If California did make up more than half of this country, should they just run the country anyway?

California is 12% of the US population (290 million). I suspect the California voting population is a bit less, on the grounds that the state has a high percentage of immigrants included in the 35 million population count.

US Presidents can pass laws. They are called Executive Orders. The current "Department of Homeland Security" was created in 2001 as the "Office of Homeland Security" by Executive Order.

Clinton was actually well known for passing many Executive Orders, but sadly I have less of an idea if Bush Jr. has passed him up.

Originally the Executive was not supposed to wield so much power, but that pretty much changed with FDR's administration and has continued to steamroll out of control. Congress still pretty much has power of the purse, but do not think that the US President can't and won't make laws. They do and most Americans simply stand by and allow it to happen.

And no, California shouldn't run the US if it makes half the country. The legislation should be based on interest and democratic influence. I'd say half of the time the state should run the country in that case. ;)

The thing to consider is that the California annual growth rate is around 2%, which only a few other US states have. So your remark about California being 1/2 of the population isn't *that* far off in the future. I think we'll see that 12% climb as high as 20% in our life times, which is an amazing number.

Think of it this way, when the CA percentage of the US population is 20%, that means 1 in 5 Americans visiting in say Europe, will likely live in California (and many of them in San Diego / LA or the SF Bay Area).

Okay...California has a 2% growth rate.
Few other states have a 2% growth rate...but...
What is the growth rate of the 49 states plus Washington D.C. combined? If it is at least 2%, that 12% of California's won't grow one bit...

Okay...California has a 2% growth rate.
Few other states have a 2% growth rate...but...
What is the growth rate of the 49 states plus Washington D.C. combined? If it is at least 2%, that 12% of California's won't grow one bit...

Fair question, but I wouldn't have guessed California's population would be 20% of the US if it wasn't in the top quarter or so of US states. ;)

http://www.npg.org/1yearmap.html

I know *nothing* about this organization, but the 1.9% quoted for California matches the state estimates of "approximately 2%", and Florida and Nevada look right as well.

Most states are around 0.5 to 1%, which means, that even with a census update every 10 years, states with high growth rates are going to be having less and less influence ... which IIRC was part of your original point.

I don't know if you are active in the NS UN, but population growth and controling it should be an issue that would be interesting for the NS UN to bring up. It is a hard international issue too.

Florida is going to have the same issues as California ... perhaps even more so in the short term.

come on this was supposed to be hypothetically speaking to make a point. maybe i should have used arizona instead. we dont know what the future holds and nether did the founding fathers. but they had good foresight and saw POTENTAL PROBLEMS and tried to have a system to prevent them.

According to the stats at the link you provided, California's percent of the total population isn't going to be growing too much.

California's population - 35,484,453

Nevada - 2,241,154
Arizona - 5,580,811
Colorado - 4,550,688
Florida - 17,019,068
Georgia - 8,684,715

That adds up to roughly 36 million.
California's 12% of America is growing at 1.9% but this rough 12% is also growing, but faster. They're all growing 2.4% of greater. Since another 12% of America is growing faster than the 12% that it is California, California isn't gaing anything in terms of the overall percent of the population.

come on this was supposed to be hypothetically speaking to make a point. maybe i should have used arizona instead. we dont know what the future holds and nether did the founding fathers. but they had good foresight and saw POTENTAL PROBLEMS and tried to have a system to prevent them.
We've changed the system some from when they were around. Like I already pointed out, there used to be 1 representative for every 50,000 citizens. That made sure that each state was actually being represented by the number of citizens it had, not the number of citizens it had in proportion to other states. If we kept this, we should have approximately 5800 representatives (that'd make 5900 electoral college votes). The vote value would have a much smaller variance in value this way.

According to the stats at the link you provided, California's percent of the total population isn't going to be growing too much.

California's population - 35,484,453

Nevada - 2,241,154
Arizona - 5,580,811
Colorado - 4,550,688
Florida - 17,019,068
Georgia - 8,684,715

That adds up to roughly 36 million.
California's 12% of America is growing at 1.9% but this rough 12% is also growing, but faster. They're all growing 2.4% of greater. Since another 12% of America is growing faster than the 12% that it is California, California isn't gaing anything in terms of the overall percent of the population.


Nevada is *not* going to grow at above 2% annually for long. The state have little water ... thus ag and residential life are somewhat constrained. Florida is the state I'm thinking will outpace California, though again, it interestingly has some water shortages ... at least unless it begins to really built large scale membrane filtration plants (which are slowly becoming affordable).

Bear in mind that when I play with California's population, I do so as a Californian. Without a doubt, in 5 years time there will be a few states *like* California with a EC count that is significantly less than what it should be, and they will be shorted. California, Florida, Colorado, and my guess is Texas are going to continue to grow for the next two census cycles.

Bottom line, the idea that in our lifetime, there will be maybe less than 10 states when combined represent over 50% of the US population, it *may* call into question the Electoral College.

come on this was supposed to be hypothetically speaking to make a point. maybe i should have used arizona instead. we dont know what the future holds and nether did the founding fathers. but they had good foresight and saw POTENTAL PROBLEMS and tried to have a system to prevent them.

I kinda disagree with this.

We *do* have a much better knowledge of some things. The growth rates and projected populations aren't complete guesses. They are guesses, but they are educated.

Opal also has a very good point: the system was designed when the House would continue to grow. But the question I have, was the original popluation in the colonies roughly the same? In other words, did the system start off balanced? (I kinda don't think so.)

I kinda disagree with this.

We *do* have a much better knowledge of some things. The growth rates and projected populations aren't complete guesses. They are guesses, but they are educated.

Opal also has a very good point: the system was designed when the House would continue to grow. But the question I have, was the original popluation in the colonies roughly the same? In other words, did the system start off balanced? (I kinda don't think so.)
It didn't start off balanced for the states, however...each citizen's vote had an equal value, which is what I'm most concerned with. We're all Americans, why should Wyoming Americans have more of a say than Rhode Island Americans in who becomes president?

Nevada is *not* going to grow at above 2% annually for long. The state have little water ... thus ag and residential life are somewhat constrained. Florida is the state I'm thinking will outpace California, though again, it interestingly has some water shortages ... at least unless it begins to really built large scale membrane filtration plants (which are slowly becoming affordable).

Bear in mind that when I play with California's population, I do so as a Californian. Without a doubt, in 5 years time there will be a few states *like* California with a EC count that is significantly less than what it should be, and they will be shorted. California, Florida, Colorado, and my guess is Texas are going to continue to grow for the next two census cycles.

Bottom line, the idea that in our lifetime, there will be maybe less than 10 states when combined represent over 50% of the US population, it *may* call into question the Electoral College.

to have 10 states which is 1/5 of the total being able to elect a president all by them selfs is the very reason the EC was put in place.

to have 10 states which is 1/5 of the total being able to elect a president all by them selfs is the very reason the EC was put in place.
No it isn't.

No it isn't.
than please do tell

than please do tell
Read through these posts. This thread is full of demagauges.

Read through these posts. This thread is full of demagauges.
*sigh* you can lead a horse to water

Really a rather amusing topic. For all the years that this system has been in place, it has been looked at as the fairest means in the world of electing the top official. Now that there has been a close presidential race that was decided using this system, the side that lost is now crying over how unfair it is.
I wonder how much of this would have been heard had the last election turned out in favor of the ones doing the crying now? We hear so much about upholding the Constitution of the United States from the Democratic Party, yet we hear so much from them condenming this Constitutional process. Which way is it going to be? Are the Democrats wanting to get into office in order to change the Constitution so that it favors them in the outcome of elections? Or are they going to leave it the fair and just system that it has always been seen to be by the entire world?

ok if memory serves me right these are the reasons the founding fathers created the Electoral College
1 they thought the average person was to stupid. (things have not changed much)
2 big states voting in there favorite sons.
3 they knew people would not take the time to really know the canidates.(still not much has change here)
4 state rights. small states where jelous of the power of the big states so it was a equlizer.
5 they did not want any one small area with a large population to have enough power to elect a president all on there own.

way back in the horse and buggy days when i went to school this was part of 9th grade goverment class. i really tried to get you to research it and give me some real facts. now a few did all right but most just ranted and danced around the issue with the EC sucks *sigh*

You expected better? When your first reason still prevails so strongly. Specially around these forums.

ok if memory serves me right these are the reasons the founding fathers created the Electoral College
1 they thought the average person was to stupid. (things have not changed much)
2 big states voting in there favorite sons.
3 they knew people would not take the time to really know the canidates.(still not much has change here)
4 state rights. small states where jelous of the power of the big states so it was a equlizer.
5 they did not want any one small area with a large population to have enough power to elect a president all on there own.

way back in the horse and buggy days when i went to school this was part of 9th grade goverment class. i really tried to get you to research it and give me some real facts. now a few did all right but most just ranted and danced around the issue with the EC sucks *sigh*

Reasons two and three fall under reason one, which was the most important reason. Reason four was why the senate was created and possibly why the senate was included for determining the number of EC votes, but not necessarily a strong reason for the EC in general. Reason five falls under reason four sort of.

Really a rather amusing topic. For all the years that this system has been in place, it has been looked at as the fairest means in the world of electing the top official. Now that there has been a close presidential race that was decided using this system, the side that lost is now crying over how unfair it is.
I wonder how much of this would have been heard had the last election turned out in favor of the ones doing the crying now? We hear so much about upholding the Constitution of the United States from the Democratic Party, yet we hear so much from them condenming this Constitutional process. Which way is it going to be? Are the Democrats wanting to get into office in order to change the Constitution so that it favors them in the outcome of elections? Or are they going to leave it the fair and just system that it has always been seen to be by the entire world?
I've been skeptical about the fairness of the electoral college for a long time, before 2000 even. And with that aside even, in 2000, we were choosing between Coke and Pepsi but (to steal from Bill Maher) we ended up with Jesus Juice. No amount of EC reformation would've gotten Nader into office...but honestly...I'll do the math and show you how many people could vote for a man and he still lose...

Reasons two and three fall under reason one, which was the most important reason. Reason four was why the senate was created and possibly why the senate was included for determining the number of EC votes, but not necessarily a strong reason for the EC in general. Reason five falls under reason four sort of.
not bad

I've been skeptical about the fairness of the electoral college for a long time, before 2000 even. And with that aside even, in 2000, we were choosing between Coke and Pepsi but (to steal from Bill Maher) we ended up with Jesus Juice. No amount of EC reformation would've gotten Nader into office...but honestly...I'll do the math and show you how many people could vote for a man and he still lose...
you still dont seem to understand this one. individual state rights with the people rights did. you have to add the 2 together

you still dont seem to understand this one. individual state rights with the people rights did. you have to add the 2 together
did that sentence make sense

but to opal's point, i think 70% of the population can vote for a person and that person still lose the election.

eevry reason for keeping the elctoral college is out of date and dead once you look at the size of states to day, a single large state has several times the votes of a small state, and to boot the winner take all system polarizes the country more: the ruling party of the state keeps the minority party from having a voice in the election because the majority party controls the election and gets who they voted for into office

Here's a great animation concerning the state of our elections

Thank you again Mark Fiore (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/electronic.html)

ok let me try this at a little lower level. each state is a seperate entity. each entity comes together for a commen good.
lets try this another way imagin star wars the old republic and the way they elected a senate president. each world has one vote. each world is a seperate entity that comes together for there common good. all you have to do is think that each state is its own nation in a round about way.
now this is over simplifide but i did not know of any other way to put it so no one could not understand.
the founding fathers never intended that the goverment become so powerfull but wanted each state to have most of the power of there own affaires. so each state was supposed to decide who it wanted to be president and than vote for that person. so if in state 1 picks candate A by 50% +1 and state 2 picks canadate A by 99% did not make a differnce. the important part was who the majority of that state picked not buy how much of a majority.

sorry for the rambling but it is late and i am tierd

the way the EU is set up is kind of what they wanted. excep for the part where each nation such as france has its own ambasedors. where do you think they got the idea on how to structure the EU :) . well in a lose way any way.

First thank you for your kind words ... but you do realize I'm the guy who was pushing the Needle Exchange Program resolution through the UN, no? ;) And I do have an idea who voted no and yes. (Just teasing ya here.)
Just because you understand things doesn't mean you're right about things. ;)


p.s. I like wikipedia as well!
It's cool of fun stuff.

I think it was a mistake to join this discussion, mostly because all it has been is rehashing the same old argument for 19 pages. A lot of stuff that presents a good sound argument even has been outright ignored just to repeat the same old thing. (This is not of course just plugging my first post.) ;)

Just because you understand things doesn't mean you're right about things. ;)

:p

Funny, and here I was hinting the same of you. ;)

[EDIT: And yes the above could apply to just about anybody here ... *sniff* self included.]


It's cool of fun stuff.

I think it was a mistake to join this discussion, mostly because all it has been is rehashing the same old argument for 19 pages. A lot of stuff that presents a good sound argument even has been outright ignored just to repeat the same old thing. (This is not of course just plugging my first post.) ;)

I wouldn't agree with that. While people enter into most discussions with an opinion that often is fairly fixed, it is interesting to see what other facts pop up.

In your case, I did like that you pointed out that Congress has a similar structure, so an attack on the EC system is also a complaint about Congress. Now I disagree with that opinion and explained why, but that actually is something I've not heard in defense of the EC before. It was a good point.

I should actually be working when I'm at work.

Well, I kind of am.

On Executive Actions, I am fairly positive that they can infact be overruled by any legislature passed in Congress, just like laws in Congress can be overruled by a court interpretation of the Constitution.

I think this is also true about Executive Agreements vs. Treaties.

I agree that the power of Executive Actions has been abused and is currently abused; I just wanted to point out the fact that Congress still holds the lawmaking power.

This has probably been discussed on several several threads before, but please, if you want to be taken seriously in arguements, learn how to spell. If you can't present your information intelligently, a lot of people may question the information moreso.

This has probably been discussed on several several threads before, but please, if you want to be taken seriously in arguements, learn how to spell. If you can't present your information intelligently, a lot of people may question the information moreso.

Bah, I think spelling and grammar are really only necessary for *formal* ideas. As you pointed out in your edit ... everybody is prone to make the mistakes.

On Executive Actions, I am fairly positive that they can infact be overruled by any legislature passed in Congress, just like laws in Congress can be overruled by a court interpretation of the Constitution.

I think this is also true about Executive Agreements vs. Treaties.

I agree that the power of Executive Actions has been abused and is currently abused; I just wanted to point out the fact that Congress still holds the lawmaking power.

This is a minor nitpcik, but actually they are called "Executive Orders".

Two "blog" sources:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1005300/
http://vicroberts.net/vicroberts/execorders.html

as taken from the second source:

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States mandates: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of the Senate and House of Representatives.”


And you are right, they can be overruled, but Congress *or* the courts. But the problem is, the Executive Branch is abusing them to make laws, which was not a primary part of its scope.

To be fair, I've already pointed out that Clinton was a big fan of them as well, this second blog is admittedly from an anti-Bushite.

With that in mind, a few google hits later turns up:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly47.asp


Executive orders are essentially Presidential directives with the force of law, and, you are right, they do not require the approval of Congress to take effect. The Constitution is silent on the subject of Executive Orders, but the courts have upheld them in principle based on the implied powers inherent in the grant of "executive power" to the President in Article II, section 1 and in the constitutional language in Article II, section 3, that says Presidents are "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Which paints a more legal picture of why these exist and are tolerated by Congress.

But as CSPAN points out, overturning a Presidential EO is no small task:


Executive orders can be challenged formally in two ways: (1) a lawsuit could be brought if it is felt that the Order contradicts the original legislative intent of the law or has no underlying statutory authority, or (2) Congress could pass a bill repealing or modifying a specific Executive Order. That bill would, of course, be subject to a Presidential veto and a need to override.


The problem is the President is a check on Congress. And while Congress also provides a check on the President, the Presidential veto can be used to nullify that check.

Now to tie this into my opinion about the EC. I said I have less issues with a Congress which is skewed in favour of smaller states. I'm not happy about it, but that is also because I'm not living in a smaller state. I do recognize the importance of a two-body legislature.

But since US Presidents are now making laws, which are difficult to overturn, I think it all the more important that they be directly elected and sit in a moderate position.

This is a minor nitpcik, but actually they are called "Executive Orders".

Two "blog" sources:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1005300/
http://vicroberts.net/vicroberts/execorders.html

as taken from the second source:


And you are right, they can be overruled, but Congress *or* the courts. But the problem is, the Executive Branch is abusing them to make laws, which was not a primary part of its scope.

To be fair, I've already pointed out that Clinton was a big fan of them as well, this second blog is admittedly from an anti-Bushite.

With that in mind, a few google hits later turns up:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly47.asp



Which paints a more legal picture of why these exist and are tolerated by Congress.

But as CSPAN points out, overturning a Presidential EO is no small task:



The problem is the President is a check on Congress. And while Congress also provides a check on the President, the Presidential veto can be used to nullify that check.

Now to tie this into my opinion about the EC. I said I have less issues with a Congress which is skewed in favour of smaller states. I'm not happy about it, but that is also because I'm not living in a smaller state. I do recognize the importance of a two-body legislature.

But since US Presidents are now making laws, which are difficult to overturn, I think it all the more important that they be directly elected and sit in a moderate position.


congress needs 2/3 vote to over ride a veto.
i agree about we need to get ride of EO but keep the EC. that is what makes us a republic and not a country like france ect.

hmm after reading that link it apears the EO has done some tremendous good
as well as some bad. maybe a revamp of it?

congress needs 2/3 vote to over ride a veto.
i agree about we need to get ride of EO but keep the EC. that is what makes us a republic and not a country like france ect.

Keep in mind that NationStates is not an American only game. There are French who might play, there *certainly* are French-Canadians.

Second, what is wrong with France? Have you visited the country or talked to any French? I have. They are extremely friendly people and their country is pretty damned nice.

Remember, France was one of the first nations to support and recognize the United States, and has been a long-time ally of the United States. While France opposed the current war in Iraq, the old joke goes ... "When Germany opposes a war, you know something is wrong. When Germany and France agree, you know something is really wrong." (BTW: I also happen to absolutely love Germans and respect their country as well.)

Anyway, it really irked me when a Republican US Representative made a speech on the House floor weeks ago claiming that the idea of having the UN monitor the Nov. 2004 Presidential Election was an insult because that would mean that dictatorships like France would be involved.

France is not a dictatorship by any means and it saddens me to see ignorance about the friendship between our countries muddied predominantly by Americans.

While no country is perfect, it is best to focus on our problems without restoring to even talking about other countries.


As for Executive Orders, they are a mixed bag. To be honest, they man in fact be necessary, but I do think that they should get more attention in the media. And though I've said it before after 9/11 it was an executive order that created the then "Office of Homeland Security". I happen to completely mistrust *some* of the activities of the now DHS, but other groupings, like the Coast Guard, make sense there.

Support and recognize yes but only because it gave them a chance to get back at Great Britian. Why do people forget that?

Support and recognize yes but only because it gave them a chance to get back at Great Britian. Why do people forget that?

Because *all* government decisions, even to this day revolve around short-term interests.

Why did Great Britian support Poland in the 1930s? Incorrect Answer: Because the Brits love the Poles. Correct Answer: the Brits hate the Germans.

In any event, if I were Polish, I'd still be thankful that circumstances were such that somebody protested the invasion of my country.

Anyway, it really irked me when a Republican US Representative made a speech on the House floor weeks ago claiming that the idea of having the UN monitor the Nov. 2004 Presidential Election was an insult because that would mean that dictatorships like France would be involved.
I've had to argue the issue of UN election monitoring before but from the point of view of an Iraqi UN delegate. The thing about UN Election Monitoring is that, according to the UN Charter, the UN is not to interfere with the workings of a soveriegn nation unless civil rights and the Security Council approves of it. The thing is...it would be an insult that we have to have our elections monitored not because there are supposed dictatorships in the UN that would be involved, but because it had to come down to that. The fact that we had our elections monitored by any country would be disturbing to me. That just means that our country is at a point where we can not control our own soveriegnity.

(and I hope the previous post goes to show the Republicans and Righties in this forum that I'm not opposed to the EC for partisan reasons...)

Keep in mind that NationStates is not an American only game. There are French who might play, there *certainly* are French-Canadians.

Second, what is wrong with France? Have you visited the country or talked to any French? I have. They are extremely friendly people and their country is pretty damned nice.

Remember, France was one of the first nations to support and recognize the United States, and has been a long-time ally of the United States. While France opposed the current war in Iraq, the old joke goes ... "When Germany opposes a war, you know something is wrong. When Germany and France agree, you know something is really wrong." (BTW: I also happen to absolutely love Germans and respect their country as well.)

Anyway, it really irked me when a Republican US Representative made a speech on the House floor weeks ago claiming that the idea of having the UN monitor the Nov. 2004 Presidential Election was an insult because that would mean that dictatorships like France would be involved.

France is not a dictatorship by any means and it saddens me to see ignorance about the friendship between our countries muddied predominantly by Americans.

While no country is perfect, it is best to focus on our problems without restoring to even talking about other countries.


As for Executive Orders, they are a mixed bag. To be honest, they man in fact be necessary, but I do think that they should get more attention in the media. And though I've said it before after 9/11 it was an executive order that created the then "Office of Homeland Security". I happen to completely mistrust *some* of the activities of the now DHS, but other groupings, like the Coast Guard, make sense there.
france is a true democracy we are a republic

I've had to argue the issue of UN election monitoring before but from the point of view of an Iraqi UN delegate. The thing about UN Election Monitoring is that, according to the UN Charter, the UN is not to interfere with the workings of a soveriegn nation unless civil rights and the Security Council approves of it. The thing is...it would be an insult that we have to have our elections monitored not because there are supposed dictatorships in the UN that would be involved, but because it had to come down to that. The fact that we had our elections monitored by any country would be disturbing to me. That just means that our country is at a point where we can not control our own soveriegnity.

Minor correction. Our sovereignty is not in doubt. "French" or "Chinese" observers are just that. They would write down what they see and report it back to whomever we asked them to (and probably their governments as well).

The point of the Democratic gesture *was* to insult, but also to point out that elections, even those in democracies, should be periodically subject to review. It also was a clever ploy to trick Republicans into French bashing, which while may be popular in some parts of the United States, will certainly cost the Republicans votes in other places (like the West Coast).

The problem isn't self rule, it is the question if that self rule is democratic or not. Democracy and electoral processes have little to do with sovereignty, case in point: is North Korea not a sovereign nation? Of course it has self-rule and very little influence from other countries. And yet, I'm sure any one of us could find any number of South Koreans would would tell us how little say their friends and family have (I'd say North Koreans, but I'm not too sure I've actually met one). :(

To put it a different / fictional way. Orwell's "Oceania" is very sovereign, but it is hardly democratic. The thing of it is, a democratic society should have little to fear about observers. But a country that is too prideful might actually have a reason for not wanting to know what is going on.

I work elections, and ballots are lost and screwed up all the time. If your County Clerk / Tax Collector (for Americans that is) is telling you otherwise, they are somewhat misleading you. The question about the US electoral process isn't does it ever break down, but rather: is the break down skewed and how large is the break down?

Fortunately Democratics, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, Natural Law, Reform, and non-partisan voters are pretty darn equally capable of making mistakes.

I had citizen based watch dog groups watching my polling place during the California Recall. I was working the place with 3 70-year old women. For what was the highest CA voter turn out in years, and an election that was consolidated, it was a nightmare. As an elections officer, I have the legal power to swear in helpers *if* they would like to help. I very nearly did, but instead I asked the watchdog group to just run some errands for me ... namely to go to the County headquarters and bring me back two more voting machines. They were happy to do so. I also had kids interpeting Spanish to English for me a few times so I could speak to their parents.

In the end, last year's election turned out fine in my county, but the point of watchdogs / observers is to find ways to improve the process. I'm certainly not ashamed or embrassed to admit that things can be improved. Heck, the reason I volunteer to do this is because I want every American to have an equal chance to vote and knowing a moderate amount of the state law and rules, I can make sure they aren't accidently disinfranchised.

The US is a nice country, but it isn't above asking for help when it is just there sitting. Do I think a French observer would zig the US out of spite? No way, because these observers are just as interested in the process as we are.

BTW: it is a great discussion, because you basically have people interested in voting and democracy here.

france is a true democracy we are a republic

Fair enough. Though I'd argue that the US is a direct democracy in many states, but that the Fed. govt is an indirect-democracy. But I could be way off and misrepresenting what a republic vs. democracy is.

But we are splitting hairs. France / the US, both governments are ruled by the voters.

Keep in mind that NationStates is not an American only game. There are French who might play, there *certainly* are French-Canadians.

Second, what is wrong with France? Have you visited the country or talked to any French? I have. They are extremely friendly people and their country is pretty damned nice.

Remember, France was one of the first nations to support and recognize the United States, and has been a long-time ally of the United States. While France opposed the current war in Iraq, the old joke goes ... "When Germany opposes a war, you know something is wrong. When Germany and France agree, you know something is really wrong." (BTW: I also happen to absolutely love Germans and respect their country as well.)

Anyway, it really irked me when a Republican US Representative made a speech on the House floor weeks ago claiming that the idea of having the UN monitor the Nov. 2004 Presidential Election was an insult because that would mean that dictatorships like France would be involved.

France is not a dictatorship by any means and it saddens me to see ignorance about the friendship between our countries muddied predominantly by Americans.

While no country is perfect, it is best to focus on our problems without restoring to even talking about other countries.


As for Executive Orders, they are a mixed bag. To be honest, they man in fact be necessary, but I do think that they should get more attention in the media. And though I've said it before after 9/11 it was an executive order that created the then "Office of Homeland Security". I happen to completely mistrust *some* of the activities of the now DHS, but other groupings, like the Coast Guard, make sense there.
i was making no diss about the french. and yes i know some french, my grandmother

Fair enough. Though I'd argue that the US is a direct democracy in many states, but that the Fed. govt is an indirect-democracy. But I could be way off and misrepresenting what a republic vs. democracy is.

But we are splitting hairs. France / the US, both governments are ruled by the voters.
you are correct each state is a democracy. each democracy comes together to form a republic.

Minor correction. Our sovereignty is not in doubt. "French" or "Chinese" observers are just that. They would write down what they see and report it back to whomever we asked them to (and probably their governments as well).

The point of the Democratic gesture *was* to insult, but also to point out that elections, even those in democracies, should be periodically subject to review. It also was a clever ploy to trick Republicans into French bashing, which while may be popular in some parts of the United States, will certainly cost the Republicans votes in other places (like the West Coast).

The problem isn't self rule, it is the question if that self rule is democratic or not. Democracy and electoral processes have little to do with sovereignty, case in point: is North Korea not a sovereign nation? Of course it has self-rule and very little influence from other countries. And yet, I'm sure any one of us could find any number of South Koreans would would tell us how little say their friends and family have (I'd say North Koreans, but I'm not too sure I've actually met one). :(

To put it a different / fictional way. Orwell's "Oceania" is very sovereign, but it is hardly democratic. The thing of it is, a democratic society should have little to fear about observers. But a country that is too prideful might actually have a reason for not wanting to know what is going on.

I work elections, and ballots are lost and screwed up all the time. If your County Clerk / Tax Collector (for Americans that is) is telling you otherwise, they are somewhat misleading you. The question about the US electoral process isn't does it ever break down, but rather: is the break down skewed and how large is the break down?

Fortunately Democratics, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, Natural Law, Reform, and non-partisan voters are pretty darn equally capable of making mistakes.

I had citizen based watch dog groups watching my polling place during the California Recall. I was working the place with 3 70-year old women. For what was the highest CA voter turn out in years, and an election that was consolidated, it was a nightmare. As an elections officer, I have the legal power to swear in helpers *if* they would like to help. I very nearly did, but instead I asked the watchdog group to just run some errands for me ... namely to go to the County headquarters and bring me back two more voting machines. They were happy to do so. I also had kids interpeting Spanish to English for me a few times so I could speak to their parents.

In the end, last year's election turned out fine in my county, but the point of watchdogs / observers is to find ways to improve the process. I'm certainly not ashamed or embrassed to admit that things can be improved. Heck, the reason I volunteer to do this is because I want every American to have an equal chance to vote and knowing a moderate amount of the state law and rules, I can make sure they aren't accidently disinfranchised.

The US is a nice country, but it isn't above asking for help when it is just there sitting. Do I think a French observer would zig the US out of spite? No way, because these observers are just as interested in the process as we are.

BTW: it is a great discussion, because you basically have people interested in voting and democracy here.

If our elections are being monitored, I'd consider that questioning our soveriegnity.

rep by pop (if pop as a decent eduataction).

If our elections are being monitored, I'd consider that questioning our soveriegnity.

This I have to agree with.

If our elections are being monitored, I'd consider that questioning our soveriegnity.

The soveriegnity of the USA is not in anyway at question. NO other courty or outside party has a notiable say in the US goverment. In fact the US is ever well know for ingoring UN dissions that the US as a member nation of the UN is expedcted to live up to. ( i.e. the rulings of the internaltion court have almost all been ingored by the US like there ruling of the softwoodlumber issuse.)

The soveriegnity of the USA is not in anyway at question. NO other courty or outside party has a notiable say in the US goverment. In fact the US is ever well know for ingoring UN dissions that the US as a member nation of the UN is expedcted to live up to. ( i.e. the rulings of the internaltion court have almost all been ingored by the US like there ruling of the softwoodlumber issuse.)
If the UN feels that we can not fairly run our own elections then our soveriegnity is being questioned by the UN.

If the UN feels that we can not fairly run our own elections then our soveriegnity is being questioned by the UN.

That is not the way UN Elections Observers work. They come in, and they make observations on problems in the system.

They don't *tell* nations what to do, but instead they simply report how many votes are lost and make a recommendation on administrative ways to correct that.

In the case of the US House debate, it was a group of Democrats, including Rep. Lee from Oakland (whom I respect) that asked Congress to consider asking the UN to monitor the elections. The reason is again as I stated, they wanted it entered in the official record that they felt that minorities were being disinfranchised. They wanted newspapers around the world to basically say, "Republicans won't like African-Americans have fair elections."

And they will certainly hammer at this issue again if people are being turned away in Florida again.

There is a difference in sovereignty which means literally "self rule" and "electoral" which means voting process. Just like kd4 is trying to beat into my thick head the differences between a republic and a democracy, the two are not related. Furthermore they are *less* related than a republic and democracy.

A car will always have an engine, but not all engines require gasoline. All countries will be sovereign, but not all sovereign nations need elections let alone democratic ones.

That is not the way UN Elections Observers work. They come in, and they make observations on problems in the system.

They don't *tell* nations what to do, but instead they simply report how many votes are lost and make a recommendation on administrative ways to correct that.

In the case of the US House debate, it was a group of Democrats, including Rep. Lee from Oakland (whom I respect) that asked Congress to consider asking the UN to monitor the elections. The reason is again as I stated, they wanted it entered in the official record that they felt that minorities were being disinfranchised. They wanted newspapers around the world to basically say, "Republicans won't like African-Americans have fair elections."

And they will certainly hammer at this issue again if people are being turned away in Florida again.

There is a difference in sovereignty which means literally "self rule" and "electoral" which means voting process. Just like kd4 is trying to beat into my thick head the differences between a republic and a democracy, the two are not related. Furthermore they are *less* related than a republic and democracy.

A car will always have an engine, but not all engines require gasoline. All countries will be sovereign, but not all sovereign nations need elections let alone democratic ones.
Uh...I really don't get your argument. Whether or not they are actually taking action means nothing...by talking about bringing our elections into review and monitoring them they question the soveriegnity of our nation. They question "Are the people really deciding or are they being tricked into deciding? Let's watch and find out."

Uh...I really don't get your argument. Whether or not they are actually taking action means nothing...by talking about bringing our elections into review and monitoring them they question the soveriegnity of our nation. They question "Are the people really deciding or are they being tricked into deciding? Let's watch and find out."

Do you know what "consultants" do for a living? They observe a problem and make a suggestion.

Same thing.

Here is the problem with your point. If UN observers are questioning sovereignty (BTW that should be the correct spelling there in my post, it is "ty" not "ity" and doesn't follow the "i" before "e" rule), can you think of a single situation where a UN Election Observer would work?

Hi Pakistan! We'd like to come in and potentially tell you that you are a dictatorship? Do you mind if all the blue helments walk on in? Oh you do? You'll shoot our observers! No way.

Furthermore it is *not* the UN Security Council that brings in UN Election Observers.

Really, if you are going to continue to argue that the program is an insult to the United States, ask yourself "why would it not insult every other nation in the world"? Answer: It isn't a challenge of authority.

Now before you tell me I'm wrong again, please visit the UN's web page on election assistance:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ead/ea_content/ea_types_of_assist.htm

One of the first rules of being a HUMAN BEING is help given where it is not wanted, only makes matters worse. Always. Period. It is just that simple.

Mexico has used the service twice in recent years:

- 1994
- 1997

Now you can tell me that the US should be insulted, but it is OK for Mexico? Don't go there.

The fact is, observers *add* legitimacy to an election. What is the Swedish team says, "Florida really was't that bad." The rest of the world can't bitch about anything but the voters themselves. And the political parties could *gasp* spend their money on charities instead of lawyers for once.

In any event, your assertion that UN electoral assistance comes from the UN Security Council is dead 100% wrong. You might really want to consider that you don't understand the process here, and are just having a proud-to-be-an-American knee jerk reaction. You can still be 100% proud of your country, I am. But that doesn't mean putting on blinders and not realizing that the idea *actually* is a good one.

If the elections are bad, the team will tell us and we'll fix it next time. If the elections are *good*, we'll be a model to the world.

It is one of the *few* win-win situations that you will ever see in your life, but it won't take because of the ignorance on the part of Congressional Republicans. The irony is that had Gore been in the White House, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing, and Democratics would be stone walling the idea.

Republicans / Democrats ... they are the same corporations and special interests, and they play the same games.

Do you know what "consultants" do for a living? They observe a problem and make a suggestion.

Same thing.

Here is the problem with your point. If UN observers are questioning sovereignty (BTW that should be the correct spelling there in my post, it is "ty" not "ity" and doesn't follow the "i" before "e" rule), can you think of a single situation where a UN Election Observer would work?

Hi Pakistan! We'd like to come in and potentially tell you that you are a dictatorship? Do you mind if all the blue helments walk on in? Oh you do? You'll shoot our observers! No way.

Furthermore it is *not* the UN Security Council that brings in UN Election Observers.

Really, if you are going to continue to argue that the program is an insult to the United States, ask yourself "why would it not insult every other nation in the world"? Answer: It isn't a challenge of authority.

Now before you tell me I'm wrong again, please visit the UN's web page on election assistance:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ead/ea_content/ea_types_of_assist.htm

One of the first rules of being a HUMAN BEING is help given where it is not wanted, only makes matters worse. Always. Period. It is just that simple.

Mexico has used the service twice in recent years:

- 1994
- 1997

Now you can tell me that the US should be insulted, but it is OK for Mexico? Don't go there.

The fact is, observers *add* legitimacy to an election. What is the Swedish team says, "Florida really was't that bad." The rest of the world can't bitch about anything but the voters themselves. And the political parties could *gasp* spend their money on charities instead of lawyers for once.

In any event, your assertion that UN electoral assistance comes from the UN Security Council is dead 100% wrong. You might really want to consider that you don't understand the process here, and are just having a proud-to-be-an-American knee jerk reaction. You can still be 100% proud of your country, I am. But that doesn't mean putting on blinders and not realizing that the idea *actually* is a good one.

If the elections are bad, the team will tell us and we'll fix it next time. If the elections are *good*, we'll be a model to the world.

It is one of the *few* win-win situations that you will ever see in your life, but it won't take because of the ignorance on the part of Congressional Republicans. The irony is that had Gore been in the White House, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing, and Democratics would be stone walling the idea.

Republicans / Democrats ... they are the same corporations and special interests, and they play the same games.

You really don't understand do you...

The simple fact that we need UN Election officials to come in...no, the simple fact that that is even considered is insulting.

Shouldn't we have a good enough grasp on our system of elections that we don't need the UN to tell us whether or not we're doing it well? If you seriously don't understand my side of this then we need to stop discussing this because there is no way my opinion will be swayed and we're kind of off topic anyways...

You really don't understand do you...

The simple fact that we need UN Election officials to come in...no, the simple fact that that is even considered is insulting.

Shouldn't we have a good enough grasp on our system of elections that we don't need the UN to tell us whether or not we're doing it well? If you seriously don't understand my side of this then we need to stop discussing this because there is no way my opinion will be swayed and we're kind of off topic anyways...

No I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think *you* understand what it means to the rest of the world.

It is OK for Mexico (our ally) to ask the UN for election monitors, but it isn't OK for the United States.

Your reaction is a bit prejudiced. Not racists, but nationalistic.

Furthermore, I don't completely trust your opinion on this matter, because you were claiming incorrect facts. You stated at least once that UN observers are sent by the Security Council. That is completely untrue, but you acted as though you understand this process and you don't.


I do recognize that you are interested in fair and democractic elections, but let me ask you this:

Are you more interested in using every tool available to ensure that every American voter has an equal chance to express his or her vote, or are you more concerned about just the "appearance" that we are Americans God Damnit and we can figure this out for ourselves?

We pay the UN a buttload of money, both as a nation and also through individual donations as a people. While the organization isn't perfect, to turn down a CONGRESSIONAL motion requesting for outside electoral consultants after we've established flaws in a our system is frankly immature and irresponsible without *FIRST* making our own accessment if those flaws might be minor or not.

The Republicans who screamed at the Democratic idea to get the UN to monitor the next US Presidential election were played for political fools. Do a google search on "UN Election Observers". Two months ago, the google hits would have been about Mexico or other countries. There would have been plenty of UN hits.

Now many of the links are about the United States. What is worse is that for the first time since around 1853-1854 the Congress *physically* removed a reference in the Congressional Debate Record (not its official name). When the Democratics made the motion, the House Republicians voted to completely eliminate the motion itself from the record.

This never happened during the Cold War, nor either World War. The Republicans had a knee-jerk reaction, and it is a shame, because the *global* press woke up and didn't give a damn about the motion itself, but started paying attention when the Republican party started censoring the House record!

The world already knows that there is a *growing* segment of the American population that doesn't trust American election results. Trust me, travel to Europe and you'll easily find a nice person who will say, "Sorry my friend, I wish we could help you _get_ your country back." And while I'll defend the process, it would be so much easier for me to say, "Oh, we have problems, but they aren't serious," if I could point to a third-party (i.e. UN) report that says: "All in all US elections are fair."

What is worse, if I were a parent and my kid had a cold, before saying, "God Damnit Honey! We aren't gonna take Sue to the doctors! That will make us look like terrible parents!" I'd probably take her temperature. If my wife still said, "Um, but she looks ill," I could make an educated statement and say, "Honey, her temperature is a bit high, but this is perfectly normal. Tell you what though, let's call a nurse on the phone and see what she says, but we don't need to run her to the doctor."

That analogy is what *should* have happened. The House Republicans should have said, "While the UN Electoral Observers we trust, we think you Democratcs are over-reacting. Let's table this motion and if we see signs of a problem, then we can address that later? OK? For now we have to worry about our budget."

That didn't happen though. This isn't to suggest that there aren't Republicans who would have done that. It only takes a few Congresspeople to make quick motions. The request for UN observers was made and planned ahead of time by several Democrats, and I'm completely convinced that this was a political move (i.e. just a statement more than anything else) designed to get the media involved.

The *best* thing that the Democrats could have happen to them would to be censored. The *worst* thing the Republicans could do would be to publically talk about how France and Sweden are dictatorships and then censor the idea. As events played out, that is exactly what happened, and since everybody was *watching* this time, the Democrats can keep pushing this button until Republicans actually answer this same question:

Are you more interested in having a really fair election, or just the idea that America can stand on its own?

You might disagree, but trust me, I've been reading about this not just in the newspapers, but I've been following statements released by Congressional Democrats and I've been reading a few conservative and liberal blogs (the blogs I just wander through via google and find usually the more popular hits). I could be a bit wrong here in my portrayal of what is happening in *Congress*, but I do understand how the UN works and I have a pretty good knowledge of what at least the European opinion of the US is right now.

The soveriegnity of the USA is not in anyway at question. NO other courty or outside party has a notiable say in the US goverment. In fact the US is ever well know for ingoring UN dissions that the US as a member nation of the UN is expedcted to live up to. ( i.e. the rulings of the internaltion court have almost all been ingored by the US like there ruling of the softwoodlumber issuse.)


If the U.S.A. asks the U.N. to monitor their election, I do not have a problem with that. If they tell the U.S.A. that they are going to monitor the election, then they can take a flying leap off a tall cliff.

There are voting problems in all Nations, just due to human error and corruption. Studies of the U.S.A. elections have shown that it is a very small percentage - most of what you see or hear in the mainstay media is just hype and outright lies.

Personally, I think it is a disgrace that MOST Americans do not vote at all, let alone register to vote. If you don't pay attention to politics and vote intelligently, then you have given up YOUR RIGHT to bitch about politics.

Furthermore, I don't completely trust your opinion on this matter, because you were claiming incorrect facts. You stated at least once that UN observers are sent by the Security Council. That is completely untrue, but you acted as though you understand this process and you don't.

Where did I state that...?

Also...besides being off-topic...explain where I said it was okay for other countries to have their elections monitored but not the US.

Also explain where I said it was wrong for the US to have their elections monitored. I said that it call our sovereignty into question, but I did not say I was opposed to it.

Then, in a short, concise post (I hate reading and didn't read most of your post), explain how the fact that someone feels that someone needs to watch and comment on our elections does not call our sovereignty into question.

Thank you.

Personally, I think it is a disgrace that MOST Americans do not vote at all, let alone register to vote. If you don't pay attention to politics and vote intelligently, then you have given up YOUR RIGHT to bitch about politics.

I have to agree with that - every right has a corresponding responsibility.

The right to vote comes with the responsibility to use it.

(I hate reading and didn't read most of your post)

Any respect for any arguement you have had present or future just went down the drain in my eyes.

Any respect for any arguement you have had present or future just went down the drain in my eyes.
Which excuses you from addressing my points, which, from skimming your post, weren't addressed in any of your posts.

Republicans / Democrats ... they are the same corporations and special interests, and they play the same games.

HALLELUJAH!! I have been saying that for some time now. From your whole post, that is the part I agreed with the most. Anywhoo...

Oh yea. Honestly, I know that regardless of who lost the election (because of Florida), the other side would be doing what the Democrats are trying now. So I really don't think there is any point in bringing in observers, since it is just another ploy. And it IS sad that so few people vote.

Oh yes, is the system fair. That's what this thread is about I guess. Well, to be blunt, if our government was completely decided by the majority, then you would have what we call tyranny by majority. The Constitution and the Electoral College as well were designed because our forefathers knew that a Democratic nation could not work the way they wanted it to. They wanted to be able to protect the rights of the minority. That is why we have a Republic. The white Southern male is a minority. I and other southerners are not running the country based on how we believe. If we did not have the government we do, then the rights of a white southern male could be trampled at the whim of the numerous minorities. This is not meant to be racist. It is simply an example. Thanks to our government, blacks were able to gain rights. If we had let the majority rule, blacks would have remained slaves. In other words, our government is there specifically to ensure that the majority does not always get whatever it wants. A strictly democratic nation would be a disaster, and would end the same way Athens did. That is why our government is fair.

I think the electoral college sucks. I also think we should have a parliamentary system instead of this system. That way the majority would be majorly represented, and the minorities would be minorly represented, rather than the majority beng represented completely and the minorities not at all.

And no, I haven't read the past 20+ pages and I'm not the mood to defend my point of view, I'm just saying what I think.

I think the electoral college sucks. I also think we should have a parliamentary system instead of this system. That way the majority would be majorly represented, and the minorities would be minorly represented, rather than the majority beng represented completely and the minorities not at all.

And no, I haven't read the past 20+ pages and I'm not the mood to defend my point of view, I'm just saying what I think.

The minorities are represented. We have something called Congress.

The thing about UN Election Monitoring is that, according to the UN Charter, the UN is not to interfere with the workings of a soveriegn nation unless civil rights and the Security Council approves of it.

*sigh*

You asked where you said that UN Electoral Observers are connected / authorized with the Security Council, here is a quote from your post yesterday at 3:30 PM (page 20 of this thread).

And you keep going on that UN Electoral Observers are an insult. They've been in Mexico in 1994 and 1997, should Mexico be insulted? I hope not, because the Mexican government *asked* the UN to observe the elections.

Any respect for any arguement you have had present or future just went down the drain in my eyes.

They say ignorance is bliss. ;)