h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think the difference in cultures is very interesting. This has been touched on before, but is worth drawing out.

In the UK, we've not had a successful revolution since 1688 to sweep away relics. We don't have a written constitution (in the UK, no parliament is supposed to be able to bind its sucessors), but we do have various documents that form most of a constitution - the Representation of the People Acts, some of the European Union legislation, and curiously, a book by Walter Bagehot in 1867 which draws together a lot of custom and precedent into one document.

But what this gives us is flexibilty, which the US (I tentatively suggest) doesn't have. We have space to let common sense prevail. One of the strangest things about Bush's "election" from a (European perspective) was that all the arguments were about the law and how it should be interpreted, and not about the right and wrong thing to do. There was an election (for a Parliamentary seat) in the UK that was "too close to call" and a Judge ordered it to be re-run.

Written constitutions are all very well, but words never stopped totalitarians taking over. What is important is less to do with constitutions and more to do with political culture. What protects our rights in the UK is not so much laws (I suggest) as the political culture.

"The ideas of states' rights isn't in effect now as much as when it was created, but the electoral college is still in effect. The idea just isn't logical anymore, since government is becoming mostly federal. States aren't really anything but names anymore." - Incorrect. The Tenth Amendment is still very much in effect... and it's the most important, in my opinion: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The states all collect their own taxes apart from federal ones, and they decide how those taxes are spent. They set their own policies for education. They write and enforce their own laws. They design, build, and maintain their own highways.

The US Civil War solved the question of which had higher precedence, the federal government or the state. The states are subordinate to the federal government in those things that the Constitution has granted it power over. In those things in which the Constitution has not, the states have full autonomy.

------

Abe Lincoln won a decisive majority in the electoral college. He did receive more popular votes than any other candidate. But 40% of the total is not a majority. And Stephen Douglas' popular vote totals weren't too far behind Lincoln's.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h92.html

In fact, if the Democratic Party hadn't split in half, Lincoln would have lost in 1860. It would only have delayed the inevitable, in my opinion.

--------

"Most Brits, unless they are regular listeners to Alastair Cook, do not realise that an incoming president takes a year or so to re-appoint the entire civil service with party loyalists." - You'd have to define civil service. If you refer to the people who deliver the mail, work in child protection, administer Medicare payments, guard the borders, and so on, then this statement is incorrect. The president appoints the heads of each executive department, and a horde of advisors and speech writers. It doesn't extend very far beyond that. We've been doing this for a long time, and there hasn't been a demonstrated interruption of services.

>>In the US, it seems, they are strongly encouraged to indulge them.

Eh?

Simulpost

>>The states all collect their own taxes apart from federal ones, and they decide how those taxes are spent. They set their own policies for education. They write and enforce their own laws. They design, build, and maintain their own highways.

I'm talking about the people of the states, not the services that the states render or their governments. The people of each states aren't individual now.

They're saying that every state's voice is important, but they're saying that not every person's voice is important.

"But what this gives us is flexibilty, which the US (I tentatively suggest) doesn't have." - I won't argue that the UK government has more flexibility, but the US government is not so rigid as you imply. The Constitution mostly tells the government what it cannot do, so it can do anything else. If that becomes a problem, the Constitution can be amended. That amendment procedure is difficult, but it was designed that way as a safeguard. Remember, Adolf Hitler was elected democratically, and his government's flexibility allowed him to become Fuhrer.

"There was an election (for a Parliamentary seat) in the UK that was "too close to call" and a Judge ordered it to be re-run." - The court had that option on the table for the Bush election, as well. They simply made another choice. They had the room to be flexible, and decided that the farce had gone on long enough, and it was best to just resolve it immediately. Whether that was the right choice is entirely subjective, but they did have choices.

"What protects our rights in the UK is not so much laws (I suggest) as the political culture." - Cultures change. I'm too suspicious of government to trust my welfare to such a thin guarantee.

>>The court had that option on the table for the Bush election, as well. They simply made another choice.

Elections can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, remember. The California recall (Another weakness in US government) is going to drain the funds of an already broke state!

"The people of each states aren't individual now." - The US is a country the size of Europe, with a largely dispersed population. Different regions are made up of different ethnicities and subcultures. Lifestyles vary widely from region to region. They have their own accents, idioms, religious leanings, and more. They also have their own ideas about government, which is why the electoral college was formed. The Idaho potato farmers have different wants and needs than the population of suburban Seattle. The electoral college gives those farmers a voice in the presidential election. Not a loud one, but a voice nevertheless.

Don't get me started on the California election. We have the recall election in October. A month later, we have a local election. The Republicans decided to do it sooner because statistics show the governor has a better chance of being thrown out if it happens prior to November elections.

Which just shows that his Republican replacement would be a filthier swine than his predecessor. I guess I'll have to vote for Gary Coleman.

Accents, lifestyles, ethnicities, subcultures etc aren't limited to states. They're spread across and within states, and no one state can claim to have part of the culture, because you're likely to see it somewhere else

They already have voices- one vote, not a loud one, but a fair one.

But the people aren't evenly distributed among those lifestyles. The vast majority live in or around the large cities. Those people shouldn't be able to screw over the farmers.

A pure democracy promotes the tyranny of the majority. A republic is a compromise between the majority and the elite. The US is a republic.

They screw over farmers anyway

Look at a state like Ohio. The majority are city slickers or suburban people. If the urban people would benefit from one president, where the farmers wouldn't, the farmers have no voice, because in the current system, the Ohio votes get away from them.

I misspoke (mistyped?) myself before. When I said "elite," I should have said "few."

Of course, no compromise is perfect, and farmers do get screwed. The electoral college gives them more of a voice than they'd have otherwise, though.

Those Ohio farmers probably share a lot in common with the ones in Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas. There aren't any major cities in those states.

"The US Civil War solved the question of which had higher precedence, the federal government or the state. The states are subordinate to the federal government in those things that the Constitution has granted it power over. In those things in which the Constitution has not, the states have full autonomy."

It also settled the question of whether the states have the right to secceed. Apparently they don't, although the constitution doesn't mention it.

"Most Brits, unless they are regular listeners to Alastair Cook, do not realise that an incoming president takes a year or so to re-appoint the entire civil service with party loyalists."

That used to be true during the 1800's, but abuses of power where presidents appointed incompetants resulted in the current situation--only heads of departments and judicial positions are filled by presidential appointment.

>>There aren't any major cities in those states

What about Cinncinatti and Cleveland? I only used Ohio as an example because I live there

Columbus, OH (I go there twice a year)
Cincinatti, OH
Cleavland, OH
Kansas City, KA

The name of Kansas City Missouri makes no sense by the way.

Cleveland?

You guys have misinterpreted me. I didn't say Ohio had no large cities. I said Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Idaho had no large cities. And the farmers in Ohio would have a lot in common with the ones in these states.

Kansas City, Kansas has a population of less than 150,000. The big city is across the river in Missouri.

I never relized the Missouri one was bigger.

I'd consider Cleaveland a big city. Maybe I'm crazy.

No, I agree, but you mispelt it as Cleavland

It's also in Ohio, which means it is not in Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, or Nebraska.