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

I would love the idea of America electing a woman President - after all, it's happened in other, supposedly less democratic countries, eg India, Britain, so why not the US.

But I'm deeply sceptical about the likelihood of some of those conservative mid-West states supporting the idea of a female Head of State. Someone right up at the top of this thread (or another related thread, I'm not quite sure) argued that, if America ever elected a woman President, she would probably be a conservative rather than a liberal. This seems rational to me. How can a liberal ever convince those conservative 'middle America' types that she can represent them as effectively as the New England folks who are paying for her campaign?

I would like to hear more discussion of this, because I know I could be quite wrong. But it seems to me that America today is deeply divided between its liberal and conservative wings, and that the two main parties will probably be taking this into account the next time they bring Presidential candidates to the ballot - they will aim for middle of the road, bland, featureless idiots who no one really likes but who don't particularly offend anyone. Hillary Clinton seems a bit too intelligent - and a bit too female, unfortunately - to fit this bill...

As I say, I hope I'm wrong - I think she's a fine woman...

"next time they bring Presidential candidates to the ballot - they will aim for middle of the road, bland, featureless idiots who no one really likes but who don't particularly offend anyone." What do you mean, next time? We had a choice this year between Mr. Prozac and Mr. Zanex. They couldn't be more boring, and they couldn't be more centrist. Consider the party platforms:

Prozac: Improve education, cut taxes, improve medical care, and save social security.
Zanex: Improve education, cut taxes, improve medical care, and save social security.

And honestly, who could like either one of these clowns? There is no division between conservative and liberal, but there is a divide between Republican and Democrat. In prostituting themselves to win votes, they've become the same party, they just don't realize it. That's why it doesn't matter which one wins... the Republicrats will rule for another four years.

Don't even get me started on Hillary... stupid New Yorkers... they're going to get exactly what they deserve...

Re: Proportioning electoral votes (posting 228, Colonel Sellers)...

Surely if the states all granted proportional representation then the votes would always be proportional? The priority should be to ensure that the votes within a particular state are proportional to the number of people living in it relative to the population of the country as a whole.

It seems to me that actually there is already a form of PR in place, because the smaller states have a smaller number of Electoral College votes allocated to them according to population - eg, Washington DC gets 3, Pennsylvannia gets 23, California gets 54. So why not extend the principle of the country as a whole to the individual state - ie, by saying that the individual state has to divide its votes up according to the popular vote?

That seems democratic to me...

Struck me as a choice between someone who commands an enormouse ammount of internation respect and an upmarket version of Homer Simpson - still as a Brit what do I know ?

>"There is no division between conservative and liberal, but there is a divide between Republican and Democrat."

Ok, sounds fair enough to me. I would have voted for Nader anyway. From the Green point of view, R's and D's are both a part of the same problem. But I still say Hillary's a nice gal...

As a result of the comments above, and out of general interest, I think I'll start a new thread to compare Heads of State all over the world. Anyone care to join in?

In predicting that Hilary Clinton would become President, I was in no way asserting her suitability. Anyone who has been following her decisions/behaviour/progress over the past few years will see that her every move has been tailored to promote her own interests (rather than those of her husband/family). She is an incredibly intelligent woman who has had the taste of power and fully understands the level of ruthlessness required to achieve it.

Love them or hate them, the better one knows a person/politician, the more 'comfortable' you feel with them, secure in your understanding of their intentions. In this respect, love her or hate her, the people of America certainly feel they know Hilary.

Untimately, one should never underestimate the power of a woman who is determined to get what she wants - just look at what happened in New York.

A woman conciouss of her wants and needs (greeds?), intelligent (manipulative?)enough to get it and strong (ruthless) enough to keep it, seems to me like an ideal president. Keeping power in USA demands a stable USA, so you wont have yanks running all over the place with their privatly owned, unregistred assaultrifles and anti-aircraft missiles. Hillary knows that. She probably knows enough to appear generous through pennypinching, so the americans remain happy. Elect Hillary. Or some other .

This post has been removed.

USA has become a reactionary nation. It's really a natural reaction to being so very creative politic-ways back in the 18 (or was it 17) hundreds. It'll change someday.. Prolly.

It's OK, Lear, I'm female and the comments I made about Hillary were made from a woman's point of view. I think men can underestimate the determination of some women. The members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet will vouch for that..........if she wanted something she got it regardless of how much blood was spilt along the way. It may sound bizarre, but many Tory MP's admitted to actually finding MT very sexually attractive (she obviously reminded them of their Matron at boarding school). They allowed themselves to be flatterd by her and pandered to her 'womanly ways' only to discover (too late) that she could be as ruthless - maybe even more so - as any man.

The rest is history...........

Less democratic countries...

I'd really take issue with that, especially with the current situation.

You should be reading the What's Wrong With Americans thread.

I did say *supposedly* less democratic.

Besides, I'm British too, so there wouldn't have been any reason for you to be offended anyway really...

Is anyone besides me deeply worried by the possibility of Bill Clinton being this country's first First Man? Ugh.

Well, if you wanted to go there...

The UK does not have a democracy. The US does. That's not to say that either system works better... both certainly have their flaws. To compare:

In the UK, the judiciary is appointed. In the US, the judiciary is mostly appointed; at the national level it is entirely appointed. Push.

In the UK, the executive head is selected by accident of birth, with no further qualifications. The executive's advisors are appointed. In the US, the executive is elected by popular vote, and then appoints advisors. Edge: US.

In the UK, the upper house of legislature is appointed by the crown, or selected because they hold an office (such as certain clergymen). In the US, the upper house is elected by popular vote. Edge: US.

In the UK, the lower house of legislature is elected by popular vote. In the US, the lower house is elected by popular vote. Push.

Overall: In the UK, only one facet of government is elected by popular vote... the lower house of legislature. Appointed positions are filled by the crown, although certain positions are subject to approval by the legislature. In the US, both houses of legislature are elected, as well as the chief executive. All appointments at the national level are made by the popularly elected executive, and approved by the popularly elected legislature. That, my friends, is a democracy. The UK has been, and still is, a constitutional monarchy, NOT a democracy.

And so, to repeat a phrase I mentioned earlier in the Revocation of Independence forum...

Citizens of the UK will be permitted to comment on the democracy of the US as soon as they have one.

And back to the electoral college...

Yes, obviously there has to be some proportioning of the electoral votes to reflect state populations. Remember when I said earlier that the college came as a result of a compromise between large and small states? Proportional votes are the gain for the large states. It would be foolish if we let Montana have the same voice as California... what may be good for Montana may not be good for California, but there is a serious difference in population that says California should have a louder voice. So California receives 54 votes (the total number of Representatives and Senators in Congress for that state) and Montana, with its sparse population, receives 4, I think.

Now, if the vote were strictly by popular election, then the large states would decide it entirely... the voices of Montana, Alaska, Idaho, and so on would be drowned out by California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania. The candidates would then focus their attention on those states, and the needs of the small states would be overlooked. So, they do it this way, and the small states become important to the election (this one is showing us just *how* important, as New Mexico has been the other battleground in this post-election screwup), but the large states still speak with a louder voice.

And, as in all compromises, this one is imperfect. Large states end up casting a huge block of votes for a candidate who won by a narrow margin, which, on the face of it, does not appear to be very democratic. But consider this... any president who wins by such a narrow margin that this becomes a factor is an automatic lame duck. Whenever they get around to declaring Bush to be the winner, he will have already lost 2004. And, in the meantime, there is such a balance of power betweeen the two parties in Congress that he'll probably not be able to accomplish much of anything. With the agendas of these two clowns, that can only be A Good Thing. We didn't have a president for the last eight years, and we won't have one for the next four. And I'm so enthusiastic about what that portents, I'm going to go buy a bunch of stock.

Technically the monarch is the executive head of state but the real executive power is held by the prime minister (not popularly elected, but the leader of the parlimentary party who have the largest number of seats in the lower house).
And please, lay off this citizen bit, I'm a British Subject

Enough with the Brit/Yank bashing! It gets really old really quickly and belongs in the "What's Wrong with Americans" and "British English" forums, whose respective links I won't put in this posting because I think they're a waste of time.

To go back to a question posted by Trillian's Child earlier, wanting conversation participants to compare Heads of State internationally, my nomination for the best in the last half-century is: the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel.

By the way, what's good for Montana (with three members of Congress, thank you) is good for the rest of the country! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Q:How many Palm Beach Democrats does it take to change a light-bulb?
A:None. They can't find the hole.

I found that at www.stupidvotersforgore.com
hilarious!

DISCLAIMER: This is not in any way intended to insult palm beach residents, or indeed Democrats. Whose candidate I reckon to be better, anyway.