Drucken

Bitte logg dich ein oder registriere dich.
1 Stunde 1 Tag 1 Woche 1 Monat Immer
Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge

[Der Uhu]

@ Kains Rache: Isn't it a contradiction in terms? You said, that people hate us because of WWII and because we are germans altough we were not even born then. Right! And so why should these people do it differently with the Americans. I disagree with you when you say that everybody can distinguish between America and it's government. I met some people who are Anti-American. And I have to confess that sometimes, when I heard another lie of George Bush I thought "Bloody Americans!" even though I know that this is wrong.

That was different after 9/11. The support for the US was overwhelmingly after that day. Every German felt with the Americans and the victims. Every German! Especially me because I saw the second plane crashing into the tower live in the TV! I spent the whole day watching the news. And everybody was shocked. It was a great time of friendship between our two countries. It led even to the decision to send german soldiers to Afghanistan. And redghost, one thing I can tell you: After WWII going to war is NOT an easy decision for Germany at all!!!

The reasons why people are annoyed by the government are obvious: the lies, the imerialistic attitude, the arrogance. You know what I am speaking about. If only 20% of Fahrenheit 9/11 is true Bush should actually burn on the bonfire!!! But he isn't...

And that is the point. Bush lies, manipulates, kills innocent people, holds propaganda speeches and so on and so on...and what happens? He has great support in his country. After the republicans convention he is ahead of Kerry. If there were elections tomorrow he would WIN. I guess that makes people think what type of people the americans must be, if they elect this guy again, which is I think an important reason for all the prejudices.

If you say that people hate America you are only right when it comes to certain peoples like arabians. THEY do, yes, but germans do NOT HATE America, perhaps they tend to be sometimes overcritical, to have prejudices and to react huffish. At most some dislike the US. But I really can't say that they hate the US. I did not experience that at all!

Most Americans I met were actually lovely people and very nice. And except of some silly questions about Germany    I got along with them very well. And the Americans are pretty much like us. I mean they are not arabians or chinese with a completely different cultural backround. So there is actually no reason why we should not work together. Except of your government, SO GET RID OF IT!  (http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/frech/789.gif)

Greetings
Der Uhu

[redghost]

I don't think anyone hates the U.S. in general. We all know that not you made this silly war, that this was the work of Mr. Bush. But it's not easy making a difference between the U.S. (the people) and the U.S. (your president), I think you can compare it to german history. We didn't fight in the WWII, it was before we were born. But many ppl talk about us as if we were the Nazis, doing cruel things.
I hope that was not too heavy, but I think it's the same in some way...

I agree with you, I just hope this election coming up will get Bush out of office.

[Eisbär]

I agree with you, I just hope this election coming up will get Bush out of office.

You just hope?

It's also Your responsibility. Do Your part, too.
So: go to the elections and vote!
Just my opinion...

Lars

[schneeball]

It's also Your responsibility. Do Your part, too.
So: go to the elections and vote!

The U.S. electoral system isn't that simple. Voting is only effective if you live in a state that is dominated by your party, which means that if you didn't vote, your party would still win.

Also, we have an electoral college that decides who the Prez & Vice Prez are going to be. The slate of electors who you choose are not required to vote for the candidate you want. They can change their mind at any time. In America, presidential and vice presidential candidates aren't required to win a majority of the popular vote, as in a direct election, (Bush is a good example of a president who lost the popular vote, but still won the election). They only need to win a majority of electoral votes. The total number of electors allowed in each state, varies according to the number of house reresentatives in that state. Curently, California has 55 electors, and states like Vermont, Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming only have three each. So if every single person in the last six states that I mentioned voted for a Democratic candidate, they would still receive 37 less electoral votes than California if that state elected a Republican candidate. California, New York, Washington, Oklahoma, Virginia....etc...have already been decided. Other states, like Ohio, are swing states, which means that they can go either way and are heavely contested.

[Eisbär]

I know Your voting system...

But the problem in the "democracy" of the U.S. is, imho, that there are too many people, who don't vote.

The last time, the Germans vote there parlament (Bundestag), we had nearly 80% of the people voting.

Last time, the U.S. President was voted, about 50% of the US-citizens were voting...

[schneeball]

Whether 50% of Americans voted (that number is pretty high, usually the total number of people voting is less than half in most elections...34% to 44% from last election I think) or 100% of them did, it still wouldn't change the fact that:

A) The electoral college decides who is elected, not the voters.

B) Each member of the electorate is under no obligation to vote for the candidate they intend to elect on the slate you have chosen on your ballot.

C) Each state sets its own voting requirements and is under no direct federal supervision on election day. This was one of the reasons why Bush won Florida.

D) Each district's party sets up the voting booths and counts the ballots. Again, this is another reason why Bush won Florida.

E) State results would still be known ahead of time, as the dominant party in a state would always capture all the electoral votes of that state.

F) If no candidate received a majority, the house would choose the winning candidate. Therefore, the election would depend on the dominant party holding power in the house.

I can go on, and on.....but the point I'm trying to make is this; Real change will not come until the system is changed. Voting in America is a sham. You can go to the booth on election day, but your vote won't necessarily count unless you live in a contested state, and even then it may not get counted.

[Drachenkind]

This all or nothing system certainly hampers enthusiasm to vote.
But if you see you're state as bound to the to Republicans, and everyone other Democrat see this also and don't go for election, then you loose the chance.

Things that worries me is that John Kerry hasn't made an clear statement.
Will his politics continue being Unilateralistic or not.
How is his solution to solve the Iraq dilemma, the Israel-Palastina conflict, gun law (current is the best joke for me)...

An candidate which highest archivment is summarised in "anybody but Bush" don't give me much thrust.

But at 30.9. the Bush-Kerry Discussion comes.
Bush isn't the best in free speach, and hopefully Kerry gives a bit more about his future politics. I wish that Kerry would be brilliant.
But Bush is not such an big desaster for me, should he re-elected.

[schneeball]

But if you see you're state as bound to the to Republicans, and everyone other Democrat see this also and don't go for election, then you loose the chance.

Good observation, but here's the problem; If you're a Democrat, and you live in a highly Republican district, you're voting booth will be administered by the republicans in that District. Also, the votes in your District will be tabulated, not by an independent body, but by the republicans living in your district. If you happen to live in a state with a Republican governor, he or she will appoint Republican election officials to monitor the state's voting procedures and requirements. What makes the problem worse is that each district in a state is drawn and redrawn by the politicians in power at the time. So, if a Republican feels he or she is at risk of losing an election in his or her district, they'll just redraw it to include more of their own party's members and less of the opposition's. They do it all the time. In chicago, the democratic party that runs the election committees there still include the names of the deceased voters taken from cemetry graves in their voting tabulations. These are just some of the reasons why incumbents are so difficult to unseat. On top of all this bullshit, the electoral college allocates electoral votes disproportionally between states. So if all 19 million people in the state of New York voted democrat, capturing all 31 of that state's total electoral votes, those votes could be completely offset by less than 13.5 million votes from the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada (33 electoral votes). Even if the western states received only 7 or 8 million popular votes for the Republcan party's candidates, the results wouldn't change and New York's 100% (over 19 million) democratic majority would be offset by an aggregate 51% republican majority (6.9 million popular votes)/49% democratic minority (6.6 Million popular votes) in only six less populated western states. That's 6.9 million Republican voters deciding an outcome for 25.6 million Democratic voters. Does this sound to you like what a Democracy was intended to do?

[Drachenkind]

No independant election comitee??
Wow!
In good ol' days of the communist East Germany it was the same.
Your example for New York is horrible.
Haven't thought that the votes can be so asymetrical.
Tabulation, what a bad joke!
If I wouldn't know that you write about the United States, I would guess for practice of the Chinese Communist party.

Either you should allow OEZD observers,
call for UN Troops,
or support Native Americans to reclaim the land and help them build a new state.


No serious,
Japan had some similiar proportion problem.
In this case between votes for people in the city and in the county.
For an shugiin (Congress) seat you needed 50.000 votes in rural areas, and 400.000 in Tokyo. This proprtion came from the people census after WW2, as many people lived in rural areas to flew the bombardements of the cities. The LDP keeped this voting proportion, as they have a firm grip in the Farmer/rural area.
But they made an reform a few years ago.  

Is there no movement to reform your outdated election system?
I have often the impression that the US-constitution and some institutions are treated like an pseudo-relegion in America. The constitution fathers have writen it, so it must be the ultimate truth and is nearly divine. A bit like the bible.

[Der Uhu]

Jesus!
And I thought that voting means to give your vote, than count all the votes together and the party that gets the most votes gets the jackpot!
You guys love it obviously complicated, right? If I have a look at your measurements: feet, yard, inch, eightth of an inch, sixteenth of an inch, pound, ounces, stone, gallons, litres, miles
I really wonder how you managed to get a man on the moon by using that system! (http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/unsortierbar/div128.gif)  

But thanks for telling us! That was really enlightening! I think that only a few of us knew that. We only knew that the US have a complicated voting system. And now I can only agree with Drachenkind to call for UN troops to observe that election!

Another question: In Germany the parties get money from the state for every vote they got. I think that that are ~25 cents per vote, but I am not sure (someone may correct me if I am wrong). There are also donations and membersip fees. That is how Parties in Germany finance themselves. How is that in America. Are the parties really only privately financed. I am asking because I notice that only super rich people become president in the USA. In Germany none of our Chancellors was very rich. So there must be a difference. What is it?


Is there actually a movement to change the election system in the US and what are the reasons why this complicated system was established?

Der Uhu

[Der Uhu]

@ Schneeball: I was looking for the website of the republicans but I can't find it! I only found the website of the Bush-Cheney campaign (which is really horrible). Can you give me a link?

Don't you find it embarassing that you have a Vice president who is called "Dick"? Isn't "dick" in english an expression for the "primary male sex organ"? How could his parents do that? Unfortunately his last name is not "Head".

[schneeball]

Is there no movement to reform your outdated election system?

Is there actually a movement to change the election system in the US ?

To answer both your questions........No. There is no such reform movement currently in existence. Over the last several years, both parties have been focusing solely on campaign finance reform (what a joke that turned out to be). In fact, most Americans don't even know how their electoral process works. Believe it or not, most people in the U.S. aren't interested in politics and so they don't want to take the time to understand how THEIR blessed democracy actually functions. For example, I'd say, on average, less than 20% of the people living in this country know the difference between the senate and the U.S. house of representatives. On the Jay Leno Show, they have a skit where he goes around asking people, young and old, political and historical questions, such as, "who's the current U.S. vice president". Only about two out of ten people usually answer his questions correctly. Its pretty funny, actually.

and what are the reasons why this complicated system was established?

Good question. Their are two main reasons why our founding fathers constructed such an elaborately complicated and deceiving voting system. I'll give you the fly-by-night course:

1. Slavery: With out getting too detailed, the framers of the constitution wanted to create a voting system that would keep slavery legal. They did this in order to pacify the southern slave states, who feared being out voted by more populated northern states that weren't as dependent on a slave economy (remember, even after the Revolutionary War, slavery was still legal in all but three northern states).

2. The framers of the constitution were all rich English (there were a few Welsh and Scotish framers too) protestant land owners. They didn't fully trust the middle class, they felt nothing short of disdain for the poor, and they certainly didn't want to allocate power to non Anglo-Saxon immigrants (Germans, Austrians, Swiss, Norwegians, Swedes...etc..). So they intentionally designed a political system that would keep power in the hands of a wealthy white, Northern European, male, protestant, elite class. Their system obviously worked well. In the last 225 or so years, every single U.S. president and vice president ever elected has been a wealthy, Anglo-Saxon/Northern European male, protestant, with the exception of John F. Kennedy, who was an Irish Catholic. If John Kerry is elected, he will be the first non-Caucasion, ethnic president the U.S. has ever had (He's half Jewish on his father's side). So much for the idea of a multi-ethnic fair and just democratic society huh?

I have often the impression that the US-constitution and some institutions are treated like an pseudo-relegion in America. The constitution fathers have writen it, so it must be the ultimate truth and is nearly divine. A bit like the bible.

You are correct.

I was looking for the website of the republicans but I can't find it! I only found the website of the Bush-Cheney campaign (which is really horrible). Can you give me a link?

There's more than one.

Here's the official website for the GOP's training organization for Republican candidates:

http://www.gopac.org/

Here's the official website for the Republican National Committee:

http://www.rnc.org/

Each state has it's own official party headquarters. Here's the official Republican Party website for California:

http://www.cagop.org/  

By the way, GOP stands for "Grand Ole' Party". Right out of a John Wayne Cowboy movie....you got to love it!

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I really wonder how you managed to get a man on the moon by using that system!

How did we manage to do it you say? We used German scientists and engineers who immigrated to this country after WWII......thanks guys!

 

We can attribute our retarded system of weights and measurements to our English cousins who have since abandoned the system, the very one they invented.

How is that in America. Are the parties really only privately financed. I am asking because I notice that only super rich people become president in the USA. In Germany none of our Chancellors was very rich. So there must be a difference. What is it?

Each party is financed by private contributions from individuals as well as the following:

1. Private corporations
2. Private Non-Profit Organizations
3. Associations
4. Political Activist Groups
5. Other special interest groups

Government funding of parties and candidates is considered a sacriledge here in the states. Any money that candidates don't spend on their campaign, they get to pocket.....no joke!

As to the question of why all our presidents were so independently wealthy? Campaigns take time and money. If you work, you aren't going to have much time to campaign. If you're poor, you aren't going to have the money to pay for the campaign nor will you have a rich network of friends who will be willing to financially support your campaign. No one does something for nothing in this country. If you want to get elected, you have to pay for it, either by check, by favor, or both.

Don't you find it embarassing that you have a Vice president who is called "Dick"? Isn't "dick" in english an expression for the "primary male sex organ"? How could his parents do that? Unfortunately his last name is not "Head".

LOL. I am assuming you know that Dick is short for Richard. right?.  Richard Nixon was often called, "Tricky Dick".Gaylord is another common American name.....imagine having people calling you Gaylord at school. "Hey, you....Gaylord!". Hancock is another funny common American name. Hand....Cock!

Or how about George Bush......Bush as in, "close your legs lady, cuz I can almost see your fat hairy Bush!".

Wow....that was long.....hope I answered all your questions.

[Drachenkind]

Your replies are really informativ .
Also I have read much about the US system, they have spared a few details you mentioned.
Thx a lot.


And to give you a link too
Maybe you will have a laugh.

www.whitehouse.org

[schneeball]

Funny stuff. I was reading the first one and finally realized that it was a joke half way through.

[Drachenkind]

It's well made, looking quite like the original.
Take a look into the poster section, it's my favorite.