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

As I may have mentioned earlier, anything with the word United in it's name, isn't.

Loony, if Sydney is New York for beginers what does that make Auckland which is like Sydney 20 years ago?

Could one of our American friends explain to me why they think that the vote of a NYer should not be worth the same as any one elses. I understand what the concept is trying to do ie protect Mr and Mrs Hickville USA but by doing this aren't you virtual disenfranchising NY, LA etc people?

Linus, you have caught me out in an error - again. Sydney is actually London for beginners. It is Auckland that is New York for beginners

That´s exactly why about half the population in the EU is against this whole project over here.Problem is (and that´s a much more serious problem than the US election)that only very few countries get to vote on crucial decisions(i.e. Denmark, Ireland and Sweden due to their constitutions) such as the Maastricht treaty in ´92 and the common currency Euro, and other strange doings of the commision and parliment,all of wich seems to be more and more along the road to a federation like the USA.

My hope is we don´t have to go through another big european war like the US had to go through a civil war to be "united"(once again I agree with u Loony...). Or whatever may happen to this project.

I must say though,Fairly Strange, that you hit the nail about us agreeing on a single leader.
That´s not an issue officially, but a minority of politicians and the people DO want that to happen, and that´s a very scary thought to imagine ONE Europe under ONE leader,last one who tried went terribly wrong.

T´mershi Duween.

Zagreb!

That might be

But why should he xuse himself to right wing Christian fundamentalists for that?

If he xuse to his family isn´t that enough and what is it of our business anyway?

Any sane man would lie till the end of his days about that, even under oath, it´s just another silly affair in US politics that serves for a good laugh.

T´m.. D...

Hmmn... it's strange that a lot of persons, outside the US - the worlds richest military superpower, which has elected itself the worlds policeman and whose corporations hold the world under their thumb - should take an interest when a president is being elected in that country, i remember in the mid-eighties Billy Bragg saying something like "When you vote for a president of the USA you are voting for us all". It's strange we (the aliens), should take such an interest WHEN NONE OF YOU APATHETIC F*****S CAN BE BOTHERED TO VOTE.

There was a headline in a UK newspaper the other day about Bin Laden personally sending Jennifer Lopez Anthrax through the post. Well, somehow i doubt it, i can't imagine MTV has been one of Osama's great preoccupations over the last few years. But you know what - if you really wanted to hit America hard, celebrities wouldn't be a bad place to start. If they killed the President, well people would get riled sure - but imagine if they hit Harrison Ford, or John Travolta - they're a couple of the best presidents of recent years, and at least people remember who they are.

As in England, too often in the US there is no clear popular mandate for a party / candidate. A vote of no confidence is a fine thing, the right to chose neither candidate, and to call for a new election, the US electoral system is monolithic, is needs to become a lithe efficient creature worthy of moving such a large, dynamic and ultimately important country. At the moment it is a dinosaur, long since beheaded, whose body lumbers on unaware.

OK....simple enough. I can see that no-one outside the US will ever understand our election processes. 'Ek...most of our own citizens don't understand it(that was one of the main problems with the Florida fiasco!)

We are not perfectly united, LOONy....though we do try. We are together by choice. The Civil War was over 140 years ago, and unlike our European and Asian neighbors...we got over it.

I'm from the defeated side of that struggle, and I promise I feel its' more US history than a grudge that I must defend.

At one time I was a bit concerned that the European continent might decide to unite and become a formidable power. After the last few weeks, I see that is not possible. Individuals there cannot even give a measure of power to other individuals...god forbid a country loose a bit of there sovierenty for the good of the whole area!

That is exactly how this country works. 50 countries who all give up a bit of themselves for the good of the one entity you refer to as the US.

And you say WE are the unenlightened ones!

NM

People in Europe (or at least the UK) a far less bothered about losing sovereignty than they are about losing fictional cultural markers dreamt up by the media, the EU are obviously going to outlaw red phone boxes, mowing the lawn on Sundays and gravy on your chips. These are the sorts of thing people worry about.

It's a farce, and the EU will do what the EU want. Because it's a government and that's what governments do. They govern, not obey.

<At one time I was a bit concerned that the European continent might decide to unite and become a formidable power. After the last few weeks, I see that is not possible. Individuals there cannot even give a measure of power to other individuals...god forbid a country loose a bit of there sovierenty for the good of the whole area!>

Is it only after the last few weeks you realize that? It´s been obvious for many people here for many years, and that is why the project is so unstable (again:People do not get to vote on important matters!!!).Giving up sovereignity for the sake of the common good is a truth with moderation at best. It largely depends on the cultural context in wich u do it.Maybe u should read up on European history.



Did I said u were the unenlightened ones?

Incidently people, the US is not the only country formed from a federation of States/Provinces. It's quite common. The big difference is that the others (in the main) didn't have to fight a war so they could proclaim themselves (re) united.

...for the next two days !!!

And b

T´m.. D...

> "I can see that no-one outside the US will ever understand our election processes."

It is possible to both understand US election practices, and feel that they could do with being improved in places. It is common debating practice to assert that anyone who disagrees with you automatically doesn't understand the issues, but one that is false in this case.

Put another way, my final year university project was on voting systems - I would hope to put six months of research against a couple of your 'civics' classes without feeling drastically outclassed...

Martin - not quite as arrogant as this post might make out...

T'mershi Duween

As to the Buddha thing.

Let's see here, if the guy was elected then he was elected with an understanding of what religion he was going in. Now that doesn't mean that if he were to say Buddha bless this nation or something like that that some of America would be a little offended. But you know what, America would have had to know that going in. They would have had to know that they would be listening to that type of thing from their president.

I would venture to say, without consulting an almanac or anything that there are more Christians then there are Buddhists, Moslems, Hindu, Toaist, Agnostics, etc etc. With that in mind, knowing you live in a predominately Christian culture, how could it possibly become a shock to here a President say God Bless America?

As far as Clinton goes, he was *supposedly* a Christian going in to the Presidency. So what was wrong with them calling him on the carpet for a "sin"?

As far as the George W anaglogy, he's not Buddhist so it doesn't follow.

"OK....simple enough. I can see that no-one outside the US will ever understand our election processes."

We understand them all right. We just think that they're wrong. And the argument about limiting the power of the bigger states just doesn't wash: this was a Federal election for a Federal position.

Our first-past-the-post system in the Uk is often defended on similarly spurious grounds, that it namely allows people to vote for MP's as opposed to a party. This is all rubbish, as the power in the Uk resides with the executive, and would have done in the US has not that honourable senator crossed the floor in disgust at Dubya's actions.

I guess Clinton did break the Christian Church's 11th commandmant - "Thou shalt not get caught."

And the one about not killing people - or are American presidents exempt from that one?

Jesus Christ, ok, I'll say it since no one else will. Electoral votes are given to states based on the population of the state taken from the census. New York has MORE electoral votes than, say, Mississippi. California has more electoral votes than Alaska. etc, etc. Is this so hard to understand?

Also, we are called the United States because way back when people felt that certain laws that apply to certain communities should be made in those communities. States didn't like the federal government telling them where a stop light should go up, since they don't live in the area (a vast simplification, but it makes the point). So states got p****d and were sort of their own "countries". The government set forth an allocation of power so that states could make laws for that state, cities could make laws for that city, and so forth. That's why we have federal laws, state laws, and city and county laws. Jurisdiction is given out to different areas. Therefor we are 50 states united under one federal government, ie, United States of America.

If you'd like, I'll look up how many electoral votes each state gets. Also, in case you didn't know, each state gets two reps in the senate (100 senators) and the number of reps in the house of representatives from each state is based on the population of the state. We also have reps from Puerto Rico. Not sure how many reps there are in the house, but i think it's like 400 and something...I'd have to look it up.

If you want to bitch about the US, let's start a new thread on more serious matters. The county where I grew up in Alabama can't sell draft beer. In alabama we can't buy beer on Sunday. You have to be 21 in the US to buy beer. Of course, you can't buy beer at all in Afghanistan...

Goens001, I hope you are sitting down because this may come as a great shock to you.

From my reading of this thread, every non-American posting here understands how the antiquated electoral college works. Some of us even know its origins. A compromise agreed to be a bunch of (in the main) white middle-aged slave-owners who didn't trust each other.

Countries such as Australia - a federation of small and large states and territories - cope quite nicely without an electoral college.

The principle of one person one vote is at the heart of all functional freedom-loving democracies.

Maybe the US Justice Department should get some Aussie electoral consultants over to work something out for them. The self-serving American politicians obviously can't/won't do it for themselves.

Incidently, the Australians also have a Senate and a House of Representatives (Parliament).

"Goens001, I hope you are sitting down because this may come as a great shock to you. "

I am sitting down, and no this doesn't come as a shock to me.

"From my reading of this thread, every non-American posting here understands how the antiquated electoral college works. Some of us even know its origins. A compromise agreed to be a bunch of (in the main) white middle-aged slave-owners who didn't trust each other."

I was responding in particular to a guy who said why should a New Yorker's vote be lessened to help out mr hickville USA. I was explaining to him. BTW, how many people do you ACTUALLY think owned slaves?

"Countries such as Australia - a federation of small and large states and territories - cope quite nicely without an electoral college."

Good for them. I'd like to point out that, first of all, i don't giving a flying flip about Australia. Second of all, good for them, this works for us.

"The principle of one person one vote is at the heart of all functional freedom-loving democracies. "

Not of all, apparently. the USA uses an electoral college. I thought we discussed this already!

"Maybe the US Justice Department should get some Aussie electoral consultants over to work something out for them. The self-serving American politicians obviously can't/won't do it for themselves."

Yeah, that's just what we need. Australia is SO much better than the US. By the way, Australia was formed entirely of criminals and natives. No point there, just fun to point it out.

"Incidently, the Australians also have a Senate and a House of Representatives (Parliament)."

Dear God, who cares? Next you'll be telling me how awesome Canada is. As long as Steve Irwin is doing ok after his crock attack, I don't worry myself with Aussie matters.

Seriously, I'm not this antagonistic, I am just sick and tired of defending my GD country. Why are Australians and New Zealanders so defensive? I wonder how many times President Bush is about to do something, then goes, "I wonder how the Australians are going to react to this". Jesus, for real.

Second of all, good for them, this works for us.

Actually, as proven by the partisan Supreme Court having to step in and appoint Dubya, it doesn't.

How many people do you ACTUALLY think owned slaves?

Many of the, allegedly, freedom-loving politicians of the time.

I wonder how many times President Bush is about to do something, then goes, "I wonder how the Australians are going to react to this".

The first foreign leader to visit Dubya after September 11 was the Australian Prime Minister.

Australia was formed entirely of criminals and natives.

It wasn't. Our Australian correspondent (Linus) may want to comment on this preposterous inaccurate slur.

I am just sick and tired of defending my GD country. Why are Australians and New Zealanders so defensive?

The whole point of this forum is to discover why so many people despise American foreign policy. Aussies and Kiwis, coming from two of the countries most recently affected by American forked-tongue policies (tarrifs placed on our lamb exports by a country spouting about the benefits of globilisation) have something to contribute.