How Saddam runs an election!

[amk714]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...514&e=3&u=/ap/20021015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_12

A little excerpt from the article:

In the last referendum, on October 15, 1995, Saddam received 99.96 percent of the vote. This time, authorities are looking for a greater percentage.

Now THAT'S what I call a dictatorship!

 

[red indian]

Oh Really?????

So you reckon the U.S. system works better do you???...go hang a few chads mate!!

 

[amk714]

Re: Oh Really?????

So you reckon the U.S. system works better do you???...go hang a few chads mate!!

Hey, it's not perfect, and the turnout is pathetic, red, but at least we have more than one--OK, only two for all practical purposes--candidate to choose. The lesser of two evils, I know, but it's better than having to vote for a dictator! 🙄

 

[red indian]

While I,m at it..........

......how many Amercans know that when you cast your vote for the President you dont cast it for your choice of candidate but for some unknown electoral colledge representative, whom if he does not like the way you are voting, can use your vote for another candidate. I dont know if this has ever happened but the electoral rules have the capacity for this to happen.

 

[amk714]

Re: While I,m at it..........

......how many Amercans know that when you cast your vote for the President you dont cast it for your choice of candidate but for some unknown electoral colledge representative, whom if he does not like the way you are voting, can use your vote for another candidate. I dont know if this has ever happened but the electoral rules have the capacity for this to happen.

It does happen, red, but it's relatively rare. Usually the electoral college reps vote for whoever won their state. But it did happen in the 2000 election: in Washington, D.C. (not a state but represented anyway), one of the reps did not vote for Al Gore, who won D.C. handily (the area is overwhelmingly Democratic), because she was protesting D.C. not getting enough representation, or something like that. I don't like the electoral college system, either, and I hope it's done away with or at least modified in the future. Then the candidate who wins the most popular votes will win, which I think is the way it should be! 😀

 

[MadKalnod]

Yeah, but the whole point of the electoral college is to prevent the marginalization of states with smaller populations. If we went by a straight popular vote, then the whole country would have to accept whatever New York and California (heck, just NYC and LA!) would vote for; and Wyoming, Arizona, and other physically large but sparsely settled states would have so little say that they might not even bother voting. The Founders were very concerened that each state have the ability to decide what was right for itself without having its needs subsumed to those of others. They saw the USA as an alliance of 13 free states far more than they saw it as a single country. The electoral college is a reflection of that belief, where the selection of the President is only approved by a majority of the individual states; and not because any single state, by virtue of its larger population, cast more votes than the other 12 put together.

 

[Biggles of 266]

good god, what kind of sicko would govern a country that didn't elect him? The UN should stand up to government coups like this and bomb the feck out of dictators.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Oh Really?????

Hey, it's not perfect, and the turnout is pathetic, red, but at least we have more than one--OK, only two for all practical purposes--candidate to choose. The lesser of two evils, I know, but it's better than having to vote for a dictator! 🙄

Not really, when you consider that both candidated are manipulated into place by the same people.🙄

 

[red indian]

And yet another thing!!!!!!........

.....its high time the U.S. constitution was changed so as to compell the President to appear on a regular basis before the Senate and or Congresss and answer a few of their questions on behalf of the American electorate. I know direct comparisons with the U.K. parliament are problematic as we dont have a Presedential system, but our Priminister has to go to parliament every week during the parliamentary term and be given a half hour grilling by MP,s of all political persuation, and they can ask him any question they like, and they can be as rude and insulting as they like, but he has to come up with some answers.

 

[JoBelle]

Well,

I'd wager a bet that every single person in this country who votes knows about the electoral college. 😛

As far as how well it works, there are prod and cons to every situation. I could bust out my civics handbook and start tossing around useless banter that will make y'all yawn, but I won't as the basics have already been covered here. 😀 (you're welcome)

I think Red has a good point about having Mr. President stand before the "others" more than a couple times a year. lol It would be nice to see him answer some questions to people who should matter. (aka NOT the press)

HOWEVER...Red, next time you want to throw a sarcastic comment into the ring, try to make it a bit more obvious. I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like our Republic is in any way as demented and sad as Saddam's way of handling politics. Did you? 😕


Joby

 

[JoBelle]

Yikes!

Jim let's just agree to disagree.

You think I'm a gullible nut unkowingly influenced by the big greedy corporate monster called goverment.

I think you're a nut you are convinced the illuminate are all powerful and make the world go round.

Either way, we're going to totally disagree.

I have hope that you're wrong.
Joby

 

[BigJim]

Yikes!

Jim let's just agree to disagree.

You think I'm a gullible nut unkowingly influenced by the big greedy corporate monster called goverment.

I think you're a nut you are convinced the illuminate are all powerful and make the world go round.

Either way, we're going to totally disagree.

I have hope that you're wrong.
Joby

Joby dear, any form of agreement with yourself is good; even if it is just agreeing to disagree. If it's worth anything, I hope I'm wrong too. Nothing would make me happier about life than if I was.

And let's look on the bright side, if you ARE a gullible nut, then you're in good and multitudinous company. 🙂 Seriously though, I hope I AM the nut. Be good girl. 😀

 

[shark]

I'm not sure that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to institute the practice that red is talking about.

But then again,why would we want to? One hell of alot of the problems
that are encountered are the direct results of the Senate and Congress,the very same bunches that would be grilling the President in the first place.Between the party politics and self-serving shit on both sides of the system,there is little room for any of them to say much.

Political games are abundant in DC,all branches have power limits,and
the media is used often to do the same thing that has been suggested here.It is also questionable how many of the elected actually work in the interests of the electorate,who deserve much more than we get in DC.

 

[ForgottenTcklr]

I don't know how these people vote for him.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd run against him.

 

[BigJim]

I don't know how these people vote for him.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd run against him.

You would quite literally be running mate. Up the street away from the lynch mob that came to arrest you.