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

But the point is, at the moment, America has the choice between pretty right wing and more right wing - this compromises the notion of democracy.

It seems that American political structure was more or less set from the American Revolution, based more or less on libertarian ideas. This happened before the advent of socialism in France from the next decade. As a consequence, socialism has never had a hold in the US.

>>excessive compromising and decision by committee, while attempting to please everybody, more often than not pleases nobody, and leads to inaction.<<

Well look at it from another angle. If there is only one party there'll be even faster decisions, no inaction.

But I think you may have a point when you say it's not in the culture. I as a Dutchman am so used to the "consultation culture" that I could hardly imagine the Netherlands without it. I do believe a little practice in thinking in grey areas wouldn't harm anyone.

On another matter, something that disturbs me when I read/hear about America is the close relation between religion and state. For instance the swearing in at court, or the pledge (is that what you call it?) at schools. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying something like "so help me God", because I just don't believe in one (or any number). Let the people believe what they want, but don't force any religions on them. Also, I don't know for certain that this is true, but I heard somewhere that the US don't support aid missions if birth control is a part of it.

Well, I know that in Austria, income tax that is paid can go directly to the church, which is what the separation of church and state was all about when our country was founded. Are there any more European countries where this is the case?

It's a bit like the rumours that Prince Charles is a greek orthodox but can't show it because his job if he becomes king is to uphold the country and it's religion!

Mel

Prince Charles is greek. OMG I have to tell all my friends.

ISnt Phil a Greek aswell? And the rest of the Royals are German. Some British monarchy.
E

They ran out of Royals somewhere along and had to import some. And most of the European royals were, at least until recently, somewhat inbred... so they're probably a nationality unto themselves. However, be careful with ascribing nationalities since if they were born here and so was their father then they're British.(not that we necessarily want them, mind.)

Wasnt Kisar Willhelm (The German from WW1) Cousin of the queen or something?
E

Fellow humans. Now I must react. Please keep the small animals OUT of your petty debate. I am repelled. And I do not believe, that Mr. Tmershi is absolutly right and wrong. Dare I say: Tequila!?

What?

no really, What?

Ah, he's responding to starbirth's offer of small animals to torture. Nope, no small animals here, not even muskrats.

The reason I believe the electoral college should be abolished? The electoral college was a last-minute addition by Andrew Jackson (I believe, but no time to look it up right now) because the wealthy politicians and landowners were worried that giving every man a vote would mean that an idiot would end up being President. They wanted the state government to have the final say. Well, we can see how well that works!

Now the electoral college is the last vestige of the ancient battle between the rights of the state and the rights of the federal government. It still exists because for a long time, people in rural areas - as Digital Redneck said - couldn't get the news. Not any more. I think every American owns a radio, or if he/she doesn't, they threw it away on purpose. We don't need the electoral college. Americans already had a problem with governmental authority, ever since the Vietnam War. Now the last thing we need is a middleman between the 'one man, one vote' and the Office of the President.

What cements the deal for me is that if there had been no electoral college, Al Gore would be our president now, not George W. Bush. Would this be a better thing? I have absolutely no idea. But it'd be nice to know that you could have a majority vote for somebody and actually get to have that person in office. It gives you a little more faith in your government.

Now, the two party system... I actually hadn't realized that there are more than two parties in Britain right now, but it sounds as if the same problem exists over there. Libertarians get no respect from the press, because their philosophy is one of minimal involvement. Many Libertarians run for office with the objective of abolishing the position once they're in. I think it's great, but not many others do. (Jack Naples - there may be several libertarian parties, but as far as I know, only one that calls themselves the Libertarians. Let me know if I'm wrong!) The Green Party was established because we need a third, funded party - that's the sole reason.

Segue to the party funding...

Della - Any party that gets a certain percentage of the vote in each election gets an amount of funding from the government. They usually match funds to the donations the party has already received. If we could get a third party going, then there's one more candidate with enough money to campaign, and one more choice for us Ammurricans.



Non-sequitur, speaking of small furry animals. Just read in Popular Science that the guinea pig patch for The Sims is designed to kill off the Sims in the house with a deadly virus, if they don't take care of the animal. Beware!

I have herd the "early settlers couldn't get the news" argument before and I just don't buy it. That may have been the chief factor when we originally ratified it but that has not been its true purpose for over a hundred years. The effect now is that it prevents concentrations of wealth and populations from riding rough-shot over the needs and views of the rest of the nation.

The middle man objective is a common one as well but I must point out that No representative to the electoral college has ever overturned the properly recorded winner of his state in the history of our country even though much hay has been made about the possibility that he could. The voting done at the electoral college is a formality and, in practical truth, is meaningless. It actually is just an administration of the points system which has naturally grown from the wording of the amendment that created it.

The population distribution of the United States is such that The five most populous states would be the whole election if it were reduced to a straight majority vote. The fact that they are the five most populous states means they have a lot in common with each other and little in common with the remaining forty-five. The are all Urban centers whose politics are dominated by similar strengths, weaknesses and issues. The rest of the country has very different priorities and concerns. The electoral college forces a national candidate to weigh their concerns and not ignore them once in office.

I am not usually an alarmist, but I really believe that the day the electoral college is replaced with a straight majority vote, the countdown to a US civil war and possibly the splintering of the US has begun. It is the most misunderstood part of the US government and the unifying force which has keep a nation as large as this together for so long.

Fortunately, I don't see how it could ever be abolished with out completely dismantling the constitution in the process. The Five most populous states do not enough ratifying votes to amend the constitution in that way with out the votes of the majority of the remaining forty-five who see the electoral college as their life-line to Washington. The urban political machine has been crying for the abolishment of the electoral college for seventy-five years but they find that the Midwest farmer has them forever in check mate.

Mel

Thanks for that Digital Redneck. I've learnt something new today, as I'd never understood the whole Electoral College thing *at all*.

I can only say that I, like you, am in awe of somebody having had the foresight to create this.

"I actually hadn't realized that there are more than two parties in Britain right now..."

http://www.omrlp.com

Screaming Lord Sutch, the best and most sane Prime Minister that this country never had.

Sorry for the pedantry, Digital Redneck, but:

US Census Bureau 2001 estimates

Population of California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania: 103.5m

Total US population: 287m.

That's 36% rather than more than fifty. OK, so it's still a hefty proportion, and I agree the electoral college system is bizarre - people in smaller states get a smaller say.

It's the only party with the guts to *admit* that politics is a farce.

But even if it would be more than 50%, I don't understand why they shouldn't be able to get their vote count. I don't believe the US would get into a civil war because the agricultural states would be neglected. I think the parties would still consider the issues in the rural areas, because they are still going to need votes from those regions. No one party is going to get ALL the votes in those five states. So in the election the other 45 are still of importance. But still, even if it weren't the case, if a certain part of a country represents a majority of the population it should be able to express this.