Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZMA3j.19766$K27.16492@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is
allowed to interpret who can and cannot vote?

How could anyone interpret this mess?

There should be one clear law for the Union: "Everyone not in jail has
the right to vote."

Anything less creates schisms and classes in the society.

The historical reason for the varying rules between states has to do with
how the election process is defined in the Constitution. It was the intent
of the Founding Fathers that states have a large degree of autonomy, and
that the Federal government be relatively weak. Most early Americans fled
oppression in Europe, and did not like the idea of a powerful central
government here.

(The primary reason for the U.S. Civil War was to reverse this, not to
free slaves, as is commonly thought. Freeing slaves was the tentative
excuse, but not the reason. For example, shortly before the Civil War, the
southern states submitted a bill to free the slaves peacefully over a few
years, but the northern states voted it down. If the intent had been just
to abolish slavery, that would have been the time to do it, and avoid war.
Forcing the southern states to give up slavery overnight would have
destroyed the economy. Only an idiot would have thought that a good idea,
because the slaves would have been starving along with everyone else in
the South. Yet that was what the southern states were presented with, or
secession.)

I've never come across this view before and find it interesting. My
knowledge of American history is the "received" one that we learn in school.

<Anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>
(Learning History in New Zealand is a pretty major task: (depending to some
extent on which schools you attend, although the basic curriculum is set
Nationally) we study Europe from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 until 1939,
taking in the unification of Italy (Garibaldi), the unification of Germany
including the Franco-Prussian War, The Austro-Hungarian Empire, Metternich
and Bismarck, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Crimea and Balkans, the
history of France. Then we do Ancient history (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron
Age, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome), Australia, New Zealand, (both,
thankfully pretty short :-)), Great Britain from 1066 to 1815 (after which
it is included in "Europe 1815 - 1939"), and, USA (The Revolution, the War
of 1812, the Civil War, specific figures like Washington, Lincoln, Patrick
Henry, John Paul Jones, and even Benedict Arnold... :-) We don't cover,
except at the most superficial level, the system of government, although, of
course, the Constitution and the Declaration of independence are covered in
detail. Average Kiwis who have reached University Entrance level have a good
and wide knowledge of the World around them. We spend a lot of time
acquiring it. You can imagine how mortifying it was for me the first time I
visited the US (30 years ago) and met people who thought NZ was part of
Australia (another State; that may well happen in 50 years but definitely
not yet...), "The Sydney Harbour bridge runs from Sydney to Auckland" - it's
1400 miles... (based on the very dubious logic that the Bay Bridge runs from
San Francisco to Oakland, and "Oakland" sounds like "Auckland".... :-))...
now I have become resigned to it and understand that Americans have no
reason to find out about much outside America... The best example of this
was the following:

I stopped for gas at a service station on Ventura Boulevarde.

The attendant was courteous (as I find most Americans to be, definitely more
so than in Europe) and was intrigued by my accent.

Attendant: "So, where you from?"

Me: "New Zealand".

Attendant (face lights up): "Aw, Man, I'd love to go there...".

Me (joking): "You guys don't need to go anywhere. You have it all, right
here on Ventura...".

Attendant (looks around, then quite serious...): "Yeah, you're right..."

That little gem has stayed with me for some time. Maybe the attendant went
on to become a movie star and achieve the American dream (I really hope
so...), maybe he flies to NZ in his own private jet, but I think it is
unlikely. Either way, I'm no longer offended when people of any nationality
show ignorance about my country. The worry is that if they start to find out
and start coming here, we might not be able to enjoy it as we currently do
:-) Seriously, we welcome visitors and Tourism is now in the top five growth
industries for NZ.

Just finally on that, in passing, David Beckham and the LA Galaxy arrived
here yesterday. After watching the powhiri (traditionally Maori "welcome"
which is pretty intimidating for people not familiar with it), and the
subsequent press conference, I can tell you they are excellent Ambassadors
for America. They seem to be genuinely enjoying their visit and NZ is loving
to have them.

</Anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>

If what you say is true (and I'm not saying it isn't, Judson; just that I
honestly don't know...) then surely, the history texts should reflect this
important point? If such a terrible and bloody conflict could have been
avoided, isn't there a responsibility for future generations to be aware of
that?


The Constitution decreed that, in presidential elections, the states would
send electoral delegates to Washington to evaluate and vote for the
candidate they believed would make the best president. The number of
electoral votes a state has are actually the number of electoral
delegates, based on population. The primary reason for a national census
every 10 years in the U.S. is to determine this, and the number of
representatives each state elects to the U.S. House of Representatives.
This made sense in the 18th century, well before modern communications and
computers.

In principle, it makes sense today. The problem is if States are allowed to
juggle who is elegible. If that happens you get the empowered ruling class
simply making sure that only "one of us" can represent them. (It happened in
Great Britain right up until the 20th Century). That means that everyone
else is then disenfranchised and the whole idea of a Democratic "level
playing field" goes out the window.


Because the states select and send the electoral delegates, they decide how
the delegates are to be selected, including who can vote for them.

That was my original point. They shouldn't be allowed to. One simple rule:
"Everyone not in Jail gets to vote". (OK, you can exclude the mentally
ill...but only if it is certified by three doctors... :-))

(Being the first country in the world to give women the vote (may have been
a mistake, but we've learned to live with it :-)), we are pretty passionate
about Democracy... here's a quote from "The right to Vote":
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/right-to-vote.html

"In 1893, after a long and dramatic struggle, the right to vote was granted
to all adult women. By that time it was widely accepted that the franchise
was a right of citizenship, and that therefore all adult citizens should be
able to take part in elections (with some exceptions, such as prison inmates
and the mentally ill). "

By the time British women achieved the right to vote, NZers had had it for
20 years; by the time American women got it (1920), nearly 30 years.)

Forgive my lack of in-depth understanding, but don't Federal Laws override
State Laws PRECISELY so that individual States (who might be tempted to pass
local legislation to discriminate against certain sectors) cannot do so?

If a State passes legislation which is seen to be against the spirit of the
Union or violates the Constitution, doesn't that get overridden at Federal
level?

What's the point of a Union if it's principles and the values for which it
stands can be eroded by individual members of it?

In modern times, political parties nominate delegates who are sworn to vote
for a particular candidate. In times past, the ballots only had the names
of the delegate candidate, not the person running for office. Eventually
the candidate's names were added along with the delegates. IIRC, in
Alabama, the delegate's name may no longer appear.

I don't understand this at all. Sorry.

It's too complex. There should be names on a paper. Everybody who is not in
jail should privately mark the paper against the name they want to vote for.
Everybody gets one vote (it can be easily controlled to ensure they do).

Many people (including me) believe the Constitution would be better if
amended so presidential elections are by straight popular vote.

We call that "First past the Post" (FPP) It was the basis of our elections
up until 1996. In 1993 we had a referendum and decided that Proportional
Representation would be a fairer way to ensure that everybody (including
minorities) was represented in Paliament. Pure PR was not suitable for us,
so we adopted a system called Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) based on a
system developed and shown to work well in Germany. In effect, it means that
people vote for specific candidates (as in FPP) and also for the Parties
they favour. Any party receiving 5% of the vote will be allocated seats in
Parliament (even though none of their specific candidates may have won their
local area (electorate)). In the 1996 elections MMP proved to be a winner
and we have been using it ever since. (We have Natonal Elections every 3
years. It used to be 5 years but we found that, once elected, parties tended
to "coast" and were not driven to perform during the latter part of their
mandate. Three years keeps everyone on their toes and ensures performance is
maintained.)

I'd agree that for the office of President, it should be FPP across the
nation, without regard to the size, wealth, or population of States.


Senate and House elections would probably still be determined by the
states, similarly to now. The problem with a Constitutional amendment is
that, once you open the long and complex process, you open the door for
every wacky amendment out there, and the people would only get to vote the
whole thing up or down. We could be stuck with a stupid amendment very few
people want, or wasting the whole process by voting it down to avoid that.

Ah, an unwieldy Bureaucracy will always undermine even the most well defined
Democracy. It's almost as if we overwhelm ourselves with paper and process
and lose sight of what is really important.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Bush, whats with the lies?
    ... but I think what really annoys me is lies like this. ... I'm sure some do want democracy, ... some Americans do, but I bet most Americans are happy with democracy. ... And I will not vote for another candidate that I ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: We must demand Blood!!
    ... You have the power in your right to vote but you wipe your asses with it ... Your watch is broken again. ... American, his children, and the hopes of all those unborn Americans who ... It's a plutocracy, just ask Bill Gates and the ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Chomsky quote for discussion...
    ... I am not claiming BTW that all elections ... >> disenfranchise voters who would be likely to vote Democrat. ... If you think vote fraud is a modern wrinkle - think again. ... >> organise a democracy. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: We must demand Blood!!
    ... You have the power in your right to vote but you wipe your asses with it ... Your watch is broken again. ... Who gets killed after the election is the average American, his children, and the hopes of all those unborn Americans who have no voice as to this burden being places on their backs. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: (OT) : Liberal Democrats Expose Themselves as the True Bigots That They Are . . .
    ... everyday working - - Americans are what they are: ... So Your's is a 'selective' Democracy where You are the Decider of Who ... gets to Vote and enjoy the Rights of Full Citizenship. ... Only Common Everyday Working People Exercising Their ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)