|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 100 of 406:
| 
Sep 27 09:06 UTC 2000 |
Re#96 - I don't actually care who Nader's VP is. I trust his judgement
on that far more than either Gore/Bush, and excepting the relatively
rare unthinkable happening, the VP has not been a particularly important
office anyways. Yup, I agree the Green party has some pretty nutty
ideas. So? The democrats & republicans have some pretty nutty ideas
too. I think some of the green party's nutty ideas might actually be
good for the country. For instance, I think some of the green party's
reasoning on nuclear power is pretty el wacko, but I think their
conclusion that they're bad & ought to go away is spot on - as mass
intelligence goes, humankind doesn't seem to be smart enough not to shit
in its own diapers yet, and I think we need to do some more work on our
collective toilet training before we can be truested with nukes.
Seriously, though, I don't expect them to come to power, so my interest
is more in seeing them become a serious part of the political dialog, so
that their *good* ideas can at least be picked up, rather than an actual
expectation that they will displace both the republican and democratic
parties and become sole and exclusive rulers of this part of the
universe.
Here's an idea: perhaps the US ought to instead join Canada. We could
then adopt their parliamentary and healthcare systems. The Canadians
can then worry about cross-cultural issues such as the integration in
the SE, and setting up a spanish multi-lingual society in the SW.
Relocating the capital to Ottawa has an obvious immediate benefit in
reducing the population of beltway bandits, & placing hot air farther
north, where it will be better moderated by cold artic air. Perhaps we
could then induce Mexico to join. The problem with NAFTA was it didn't
go far enough; partial economic union, without the shared
responsibilities and advantages of a single shared political and social
system.
Re #30,$29 - no, actually I wasn't talking about the entertainment
industry. I was talking about the news media. I don't expect Gore
would be saying much directed against the news media. He doesn't have
to; he's a creature of the same large corporations that already
basically own the traditional news empires. I'd expect to hear him talk
about drugs, terrorists, violence, & sex in the entertainment industry,
& on the internet, and I'd expect to hear a lot of words like
"responsible use", and "non-partisan" committees, internet fraud,
"industry watchmen" and "industry standards" and even "common decency".
I fear he might well foster a series of bills, kinda like CDA only a bit
more denatured, directed against the various assorted evils. I'd expect
that increasingly, on the internet especially, it would become
simultaneously much harder and more risky for small information
providers to exist, while becoming easier to provide information on a
larger information provider, provided one is willing to accept more
control over what one says, and more risk if one says the wrong thing.
Some of that control could be by the gov't - the FBI's Carnivore. Some
of that control could be industry - how about a mandatory web rating
system? I don't really expect much change to the entertainment
industry, except politics might become even scarcer (if that were
possible), and certain kinds of controversial subjects might become
tabboo.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 101 of 406:
|
Sep 27 13:42 UTC 2000 |
i believe mr. nader is appearing on late night with david letterman, tomorrow
nite (thurs)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 102 of 406:
|
Sep 27 16:41 UTC 2000 |
When was the last time a new party became one of the Big Two? For
the Republicans, it was Abe Lincon, 1860. Was he the first Republican
in Washington? That is, without Senators and Representatives being in
office before that party winning the Presidentcy. What was the
progression for the Democrats when they started gaining power?
|
flem
|
|
response 103 of 406:
|
Sep 27 17:20 UTC 2000 |
(Since this item is dangerously close to losing its drift content...)
re resp:82 - Yes, I would dispute that heliocentricity is a fact.
The heliocentric *theory*, based on mechanics, predicts where the
observed locations of planets and such will be w.r.t. various fixed
stars, other planets, etc. The only *facts* in the case are the
actual observed locations of said planets and such. Since these
observations tend to be in very good agreement to the predictions,
scientists quite correctly conclude that it is a very good theory.
Here's my key point, in this and several similar arguments: just
because there are no observations which contradict a theory, does not
mean the theory is "correct". Consider what you would think if
someone had told you in 1990 that Fermat's last theorem was a fact.
"But it's never been proved", you might say, to which your informant
might respond, "Oh, they've shown it to be true for all n less than
200,000; it must be true." Science does not have access to the
kinds of that can produce *facts*. It's not possible. All of the
conclusions of science, all the great discoveries, are just theories.
The business of science is the evaluation of the predictive value
of theories, and no more. To call scientific theories "facts" is
explicitly to deny the most fundamental truth of science: that we can
never, ever, be completely sure that we're right.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 104 of 406:
|
Sep 27 17:22 UTC 2000 |
Mr. Gore appeared on MTV yesterday, broadcast from the UM North Campus (Thanks
for scheduling it at the same time as I was trying to teach).
[from NYTimes, Wed, Sep 27, 200] One student told Mr. Gore he was tempted
to vot for Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, and challenged him to
"assure me that a vote for Al Gore is a conscientious vote, not simply a
vote for the lesser of two evils." Mr Gore cited his support for tough
environmental enforcement and consumer protections.
"I don't think anybody wants to feel like they have no options," Mr. Gore
said. "At the same time, they don't want to cast a meaningless vote that
doesn't have an impact on the outcome."
|
senna
|
|
response 105 of 406:
|
Sep 27 17:38 UTC 2000 |
Joining Canada is a bad idea, although I think a parliamentary system of
representation would do a good job of distributing idealogies better *and*
getting people to vote.
|
polygon
|
|
response 106 of 406:
|
Sep 27 18:02 UTC 2000 |
Re 105. A parliamentary system would mean a very different style of
governing, top to bottom. It would probably take Americans quite a
while to get used to it. The transition period might be pretty hairy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 107 of 406:
|
Sep 27 18:05 UTC 2000 |
The parliamentary system also has some very big negatives, which include
having to form coalitions of numerous parties, the defection of some
of which can bring down a government. It is a question of the respective
merits of that kind of chaos, which is actually more representive,
versus a stable but time-limited, "winner take almost all", government,
such as we have. Maybe it is a matter of whether the people want to be
entertained as well as served by their government. 8^}
|
polygon
|
|
response 108 of 406:
|
Sep 27 18:08 UTC 2000 |
Re 107. The winner in the parliamentary system is MUCH more powerful
than the winner in the presidential system, since the winning party
controls both the legislative and executive branches, and the minority
party is basically excluded from doing anything but heckle.
See James Q. Wilson's book "Bureaucracy" for many examples of how the
differences between parliamentary and presidential government shape
the behavior bureuacrats, right down to DMV clerks and OSHA inspectors.
|
polygon
|
|
response 109 of 406:
|
Sep 27 18:09 UTC 2000 |
er, behavior *of* bureaucrats.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 406:
|
Sep 27 21:19 UTC 2000 |
actually, its theoretically possible that gore could win the electoral
college vote but lose the popular vote, in a close contest. this is
presuming Bush wins by a wide margin in Texas and the mountain states
where he's way ahead and the votes are nailbitingly close everywhere
else. This would provoke a constitutional crisis, with some who would
surely say Gore shouldnt take office if he lost the popular vote.
I dont think anyone is quite sure what to do if such a scenario
occurred.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 111 of 406:
|
Sep 27 21:27 UTC 2000 |
I wouldn't worry about it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 112 of 406:
|
Sep 27 21:54 UTC 2000 |
Other presidents have lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote.
I thought Clinton was one of them (but maybe he got the plurality each time,
just not the majority).
I am sure people know what to do in this scenario. The winner of the electoral
college becomes the next president. Technically, the popular vote is
irrelevant (what's relevant, more properly speaking, is the popular vote in
each state).
|
brighn
|
|
response 113 of 406:
|
Sep 27 22:17 UTC 2000 |
Clinton got pluralities each time.
The last time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote and lost the
popular vote was Harrison (over Cleveland) in 1888. Harrisson lost by 90,596
votes (he was 0.8% behind Cleveland), but received 58.1% of the electoral
vote.
Source: http://uselectionatlas.org/poltextj.html
|
scg
|
|
response 114 of 406:
|
Sep 28 00:25 UTC 2000 |
The Constitution is pretty clear on that. It woudln't be a crisis.
|
richard
|
|
response 115 of 406:
|
Sep 28 00:58 UTC 2000 |
clinton wonthe popular voteboth times, he just didnt get over 50%. I
think if I was Gore and I won the electoral vote but lostthepopular
vote, I might feel ethically bound to ask my electors to vote for Bush.
They really should do away with the electoral collegeanyway.
|
polygon
|
|
response 116 of 406:
|
Sep 28 01:33 UTC 2000 |
It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis. It would be a political crisis.
I don't think it is likely, but if it happened, it would be a problem.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 406:
|
Sep 28 02:39 UTC 2000 |
Okay, if you are interested, Ralph Nader's runningmate is Winona LaDuke,
a half-jewish/half-native american activist. Her pet causeis to forcethe
american government to give back land stolen from the Anishinabeg tribe
and make reparations. She is also a practicing jewjust like Leiberman, so
shewouldnt work on Rosh Hashana either.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 118 of 406:
|
Sep 28 04:26 UTC 2000 |
I think the Electoral College is an important even if unlikely check on an
improbable but not impossible event of some wild eyed demagogue arousing
the populace to vote in a tyrant. The Electoral College can decide to vote
for someone that didn't even run. Some people want to "bear arms" for this
purpose. The Electoral College serves a similar but bloodless purpose.
|
senna
|
|
response 119 of 406:
|
Sep 28 04:49 UTC 2000 |
I'd go out and say it wouldn't even be much of a political crisis, but if Gore
wins electorally and loses popularly, you just know the Republicans will gripe
about it. Ah well. I don't think it's too big of a deal. Everyone is taught
in high school that this is a possibility.
Since we're never told anything about the actual electoral college, i'm not
sure how much of a check that is, but it's nice that some states can't
completely run roughshod over others.
|
mdw
|
|
response 120 of 406:
|
Sep 28 06:22 UTC 2000 |
It seems to me the Candadians have done quite a bit of "giving land back
to the indians" - so perhaps giving that land back to the Anishinabegs
would be a good prelude to joining Canada, eh? Seriously, though, the
VP has very little authority to override federal and local law, seize
land from one group of private land owners, and transfer that land
ownership to another group of owners. In fact, the VP has very little
authority to do anything.
I went to a school district that was at least 50% jewish. If LaDuke
wants to make Rosh Hashana a natural holiday (say, like Christmas), I
have no problem with that. Or if she wants to take a personal day off
instead, more power to her. If she doesn't want to take motorized
transportation on saturdays, and prefers instead to walk to the local
synagogue, that's fine too - good exercise and a chance to humanize the
political process. I don't see any real incompatibility between being a
US politician and being a jew. To the extent that religion is an issue
at all, I'd rather see a jew than a roman-catholic, only because I don't
like the official RC position on abortion.
If that's the worst you can say about her, she doesn't sound very scary
at all. She might even make a better president than Ford, who is
actually my favorite of our recent republican presidents.
|
danr
|
|
response 121 of 406:
|
Sep 28 12:42 UTC 2000 |
I rather like the idea of a parliamentary system. As for it creating upheaval,
well what's wrong with a little upheaval now and then? Keeps fat cats on their
toes. As for being less stable, all I can say is that the parliamentary system
is in place in many countries, such as the UK and Canada, which seem pretty
stable to me.
|
bru
|
|
response 122 of 406:
|
Sep 28 12:45 UTC 2000 |
Its just as possible for Bush to win the electoral and gore the majority.
With a race this tight, it could go either way. But I am counting on the
people seeing thru this shenanigans with Gore Lieberman and go with Bush
Cheney at the end.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 123 of 406:
|
Sep 28 13:58 UTC 2000 |
Okay, could someone please explain the electoral college to me?
Because I really don't understand what the point of it is. Why do we
really need it? I think a vote should be a vote, each individual
person counting and whoever gets the most wins. This is my rather
uneducated opinion on it (I know the electoral college was explained to
me when I was in high school but I didn't understand it then and I
don't understand it now.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 124 of 406:
|
Sep 28 14:09 UTC 2000 |
Re 123. The point? When this was all set up, they wanted each state
to have a set amount of say in the process, regardless of how many (or
how few) people actually voted in each state.
There was also no experience with mass democracy, and no expectation
that national parties would emerge. They expected each state or region
to come up with its own candidate or candidates, and that normally the
election would be settled in the House of Representatives.
|