Vote!

[maggiethecat]

admin said:

And it looks like Joe Lieberman will suddenly be extremely important in such a tight Senate. Part of me really dislikes him and wishes Ned Lamont had won while another part of me is kind of glad he got to stay in. I can't explain why.

Let me just say as a citizen of Connecticut and a registered Democrat that the thought of Joe Lieberman being suddenly important is more than a little frightening. (Look up spineless in the dictionary and there's a tiny little picture of him.) The Democrats of this state spoke "loud and clear" in the primary, and he chose not to hear us. He votes with Bush most of the time, and still thinks the war in Iraq is "winnable." Not good.

I, too, saw the piece on Tammy Duckword on CSPAN was very impressed with her -- hope she tries again.

On a much brighter note, we got the House back after twelve years, fingers crossed for Jim Webb in Virginia, and Rummy is history. All in all, not a bad day. ;D

[shmeep]

Stewart and Colbert did a joint show on election night and it ended with Colbert admitting defeat and going off on this wonderful rant:

"Don't think you're off the hook, voters. You're the ones who made this bed. Now you're the ones who are gonna have to move over so a gay couple can sleep in it. Tomorrow you're all gonna to wake up in a brave new world, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorist clones created in a stem-cell research lab run by homosexual doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags, where tax-and-spend Democrats take all your hard earned money and use it to buy electric cars for National Public Radio and teach evolution to illegal immigrants... Oh and everybody's high!"

[Chocky]

I'm curious about the recent elections in America, in particular how the Democrats won but GB is still president for another 2 years despite being Republican (is that right?). We have a different system of government so I don't really understand how this works. Can anyone explain?

[shmeep]

chocky said:

I'm curious about the recent elections in America, in particular how the Democrats won but GB is still president for another 2 years despite being Republican (is that right?). We have a different system of government so I don't really understand how this works. Can anyone explain?

I think I can help you. Our Congress is divided into two parts, the House and the Senate. The House is elected for two-year terms and the Senate is elected for six-year terms. The Senate is what is known as a continuous body, meaning that their terms are staggered so that one third of them are up for re-election every two years while the remaining two thirds are not. Maintains stability. Our president is elected once every four years, but there are still mid-term elections halfway through each presidential term. Usually there's not a huge fuss about them and voter turnout is fairly low, but this particular election was a pretty big deal.

In 1994, during Bill Clinton's first mid-term election, the Democrats lost control of the House and the Senate. His first two years as president backed by a democratic congress didn't go over very well so the nation made a change and voted in a Republican Congress and that's what we've had for the last twelve years. Half of that time, the Congress was balanced out by our Democratic President, but for the last six years, it's been Republican all around and all the checks and balances built into the system seemed to be failing. Now that Bush's popularity has reached an all-time low and the war in Iraq is not going well, we've turned another corner and have resoundingly voted the Democrats back into power in Congress.

This mid-term election was a huge deal because it means that, for the first time in Bush's presidency, he will not be able to do whatever he wants because he no longer has the congressional support he has always had. Should be interesting.

Hope this answers your questions.

[Chocky]

Thanks for explaining Shmeep. So does that mean that when the presidential elections are held you vote for a particular person rather than their party?

[shmeep]

chocky said:

Thanks for explaining Shmeep. So does that mean that when the presidential elections are held you vote for a particular person rather than their party?

You're welcome, chocky!

And that's an interesting question. Some people don't feel a strong affiliation with any political party and might therefore feel inclined to vote for the person rather than for that person's party. Other people are more interested in the party and they just hope the person their party selected to represent them will do a good job. In 2004, a lot of Democrats were not thrilled that John Kerry was the candidate who came out of the primary elections with the support of the Democratic party, but they voted for him anyway because they were certainly not about to start voting for Bush and the Republicans. The problem, though, was that not enough independents were on Kerry's side for him to pull off a victory and that was what swung the election in Bush's favor. So to answer your question, I'd say it tends to be more about party than about the person, but if enough people who don't care about the party don't like the person, that can influence the results as well so...it's both the party and the person.

Any other political junkies out there want to weigh in?

[inuvik]

admin said:

chocky said:

Thanks for explaining Shmeep. So does that mean that when the presidential elections are held you vote for a particular person rather than their party?

And that's an interesting question. Some people don't feel a strong affiliation with any political party and might therefore feel inclined to vote for the person rather than for that person's party. Other people are more interested in the party and they just hope the person their party selected to represent them will do a good job. In 2004, a lot of Democrats were not thrilled that John Kerry was the candidate who came out of the primary elections with the support of the Democratic party, but they voted for him anyway because they were certainly not about to start voting for Bush and the Republicans. The problem, though, was that not enough independents were on Kerry's side for him to pull off a victory and that was what swung the election in Bush's favor. So to answer your question, I'd say it tends to be more about party than about the person, but if enough people who don't care about the party don't like the person, that can influence the results as well so...it's both the party and the person.

I'm guessing that chocky means literally--do you vote for a person or do you vote for a party. Because here in Canada, you don't ever vote for the Prime Minister, whereas in the States you do literally vote for the President, right?

Here, in Canada, the leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister (assuming that the leader was elected and got his seat--not a sure thing!)

Chocky, is Australia like Canada? Here, you vote for the House of Commons. People may choose to cast their vote based on party affiliation or liking the local candidate, but that's all you vote for federally--the local candidate. Then, the party with the most people elected becomes the government, and the leader of that party is the PM (as above, assuming he got his seat). It's called the First past the post system (may not be the official name, but that's how everyone refers to it).

It's also the same provincially, and there is lots of talk in some provinces about changing it to some form of proportional representation. Lots of times, the governing party may not have a lot of the popular vote, but gets in if the votes are split among the other parties.

Canada has 4 federal parties that run candidates in all ridings: Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, and Green. There are others that may only run in some ridings, and of course the party with the third highest number of seats in the House only runs candidates in Quebec--the Bloc Quebecois.

Shmeep, thanks for the explanation of the US, I didn't know much of that.

[mlm828]

inuvik said:

I'm guessing that chocky means literally--do you vote for a person or do you vote for a party. Because here in Canada, you don't ever vote for the Prime Minister, whereas in the States you do literally vote for the President, right?

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. In the U.S., we don't directly elect the President. We have something called the Electoral College. In each state, there is a slate of "electors" pledged to each presidential candidate. When you vote for a particular presidential candidate, you're actually voting for his or her slate of electors. The candidate who wins the most votes in each state gets all of that state's electoral votes. About a month after Election Day, the electors cast their votes, and the President is formally elected. All of this applies only to the President (and maybe the Vice President, too -- I can't remember). We have direct elections for the other elected offices.

If you watched any coverage of recent U.S. Presidential elections, you may have been puzzled about why there was so much emphasis on whether a candidate won or "carried" a particular state, like Ohio in 2004 or Florida in 2000. The Electoral College is the explanation for that. It also explains why someone can be elected President despite losing the popular vote, which has happened several times, such as in 2000. Of course, in 2000, the only "election" that really counted had only nine votes cast, in the U.S. Supreme Court. And we all know how that came out.

[maggiethecat]

And every four years, there's a heated debate about whether or not we should do away with the archaic Electoral College and just go with the popular vote. Had that been the case in 2004, Al Gore would have been elected president and we would never have invaded Iraq . . . since as far as we know, Saddam Hussein never "tried to kill" Al Gore's "dad."

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

And every four years, there's a heated debate about whether or not we should do away with the archaic Electoral College and just go with the popular vote. Had that been the case in 2004, Al Gore would have been elected president and we would never have invaded Iraq . . . since as far as we know, Saddam Hussein never "tried to kill" Al Gore's "dad."

I have always thought one reason for Bush II's fixation on Iraq was the criticism Bush I received for not going all the way to Baghdad and taking out Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War. In my opinion, Bush II invaded Iraq in part to show he was a "bigger man" than his dad (if you know what I mean ).

[Chocky]

inuvik said:

admin said:

And that's an interesting question. Some people don't feel a strong affiliation with any political party and might therefore feel inclined to vote for the person rather than for that person's party. Other people are more interested in the party and they just hope the person their party selected to represent them will do a good job. In 2004, a lot of Democrats were not thrilled that John Kerry was the candidate who came out of the primary elections with the support of the Democratic party, but they voted for him anyway because they were certainly not about to start voting for Bush and the Republicans. The problem, though, was that not enough independents were on Kerry's side for him to pull off a victory and that was what swung the election in Bush's favor. So to answer your question, I'd say it tends to be more about party than about the person, but if enough people who don't care about the party don't like the person, that can influence the results as well so...it's both the party and the person.

I'm guessing that chocky means literally--do you vote for a person or do you vote for a party. Because here in Canada, you don't ever vote for the Prime Minister, whereas in the States you do literally vote for the President, right?

Here, in Canada, the leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister (assuming that the leader was elected and got his seat--not a sure thing!)

Chocky, is Australia like Canada? Here, you vote for the House of Commons. People may choose to cast their vote based on party affiliation or liking the local candidate, but that's all you vote for federally--the local candidate. Then, the party with the most people elected becomes the government, and the leader of that party is the PM (as above, assuming he got his seat). It's called the First past the post system (may not be the official name, but that's how everyone refers to it).

Yes that is what I was asking. It sounds like Australia is similar to Canada -we also elect a party and the leader becomes PM. The main parties are Labour, Liberal and Democrats (and a few smaller ones). Currently there is a Liberal ferderal government and here in Victoria the government is Labour. We are having a state election next weekend. Voting is compulsory here as well - is it in Canada?

[maggiethecat]

mlm828 said:

I have always thought one reason for Bush II's fixation on Iraq was the criticism Bush I received for not going all the way to Baghdad and taking out Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War. In my opinion, Bush II invaded Iraq in part to show he was a "bigger man" than his dad (if you know what I mean ).

I do indeed know what you mean, and karma for the comment!

[inuvik]

chocky said:

Voting is compulsory here as well - is it in Canada?

No, although the idea occassionally gets tossed around as a way to improve the percentage of the population who vote.

What is the penalty for not voting in Australia?

[shmeep]

chocky said:

inuvik said:

I'm guessing that chocky means literally--do you vote for a person or do you vote for a party. Because here in Canada, you don't ever vote for the Prime Minister, whereas in the States you do literally vote for the President, right?

Here, in Canada, the leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister (assuming that the leader was elected and got his seat--not a sure thing!)

Chocky, is Australia like Canada? Here, you vote for the House of Commons. People may choose to cast their vote based on party affiliation or liking the local candidate, but that's all you vote for federally--the local candidate. Then, the party with the most people elected becomes the government, and the leader of that party is the PM (as above, assuming he got his seat). It's called the First past the post system (may not be the official name, but that's how everyone refers to it).

Yes that is what I was asking. It sounds like Australia is similar to Canada -we also elect a party and the leader becomes PM. The main parties are Labour, Liberal and Democrats (and a few smaller ones). Currently there is a Liberal ferderal government and here in Victoria the government is Labour. We are having a state election next weekend. Voting is compulsory here as well - is it in Canada?

That is so interesting! I guess I didn't completely grasp the question so thank you, Inuvik, for clarifying. I had no idea you guys elected a party and that the leader of that party becomes the prime minister. Here anyone who is over 35, was born in this country and (assumedly) has never committed a felony can run for president, but our pool of candidates is generally narrowed down to vice presidents, senators, congressmen (sometimes) and state governors. And the occasional retired general (go Wesley Clark!). They have to start running a couple of years before the election if they want to build enough momentum to get noticed and eventually, the parties start to narrow it down through debates and primaries until the front runner for each party is chosen a few months before the election. Then the two parties spend millions of dollars trashing each other in the media until it's time to vote in November. Yeah, our system works.

And your voting is compulsory, Chocky? Whoa! Ours isn't. We're lucky to get a 50% voter turnout for most elections, but it's higher when things get really heated. One guy, I think he's a congressman from Arizona, but I could be wrong, is proposing that we turn our voting into a lottery and randomly award $1 million to someone who voted that day. I don't think it's going over very well, but that idea would bring people out to the polls. But I'm not sure if we really want those people voting...

[Kasman]

admin said:

And your voting is compulsory, Chocky? Whoa! Ours isn't. We're lucky to get a 50% voter turnout for most elections, but it's higher when things get really heated. One guy, I think he's a congressman from Arizona, but I could be wrong, is proposing that we turn our voting into a lottery and randomly award $1 million to someone who voted that day. I don't think it's going over very well, but that idea would bring people out to the polls. But I'm not sure if we really want those people voting...

If it wasn't compulsory, you'd get tumbleweeds rolling through the polling booths...