Touched upon this in the election thread...

America's next president

The incompetent or the incoherent?

Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd

YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.

Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.

THE REST AT THE LINK ("The real gravy"...)

The sections:
The case against George Bush
Making sense of John Kerry
The task ahead, and the man to fit it

Good article, NOW GO VOTE

I'm really not sure about Kerry's ideas but whenever i heard him in the debate all i heard him say i have a plan to get americans to do this...do that I juist really never heard what hes going to do

If anyone has information about what is he going to do post it

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but just to explain my own posts better:

What I like about the US two party system is it avoids the pitfall of many other democracies. You often see countries where after an election you have 22% of parliament is party A, 15% is party B, 30% is party C, 11% is party D and so on. And then they have to construct a coalition. With the two party system, it forces internal coalitions and cuts down on the b.s. part of democracy by getting that out of the way beforehand. Personally I think the Naderites, Libertarians, Socialists, Perotists and all would be better off working for change inside one of the two main parties, become part of that party's coalition. Call yourself a republican or democrat but work for your Naderish or Libertarianish ideas, that's the American style, and I think it generally works better.

OK I'm done, just had to explain myself more. heheh.

Same way I feel.

That's why we have primaries, instead of runoffs, also.

I see your point, and don't disagree with it, I just think you could say the same thing about a three party system, and then have the ability to not paint issues in terms of opposites (which couldn't happen with three parties). I don't think we need 30 political parties, I just think its too easy to paint certain discussions Taxes/No Taxes, Yes War/No War, Pro-choice/Anti-choice, etc, in terms of black and white when two parties have to create their identities only in terms of opposition to the other. If there were three parties, would all these issues incorporate more grayscale? Possibly. How much more information and interpretation of economic trends was there when Perot took it public with his charts and graphs?

Two party system just has too much identity through opposition for me. It like this, remeber the Website you gave Krem for voters that hate Kerry but are still voting for him? It was because they hated Bush even more. Well, if there was a solid third party in the fray, would they have been more likely to vote for someone than just against Bush? Possibly. Because once they had identified disliking Bush's agenda, they still would have had to decide whom they actually did want to vote for. I don't think there needs to be 15 parties, for the reason you stated above. But I don't htink three is pushing it.

-Dolce

But the third parties are already within the major parties! It's up to you to nominate the candidate of your choosing.

For instatnce, the Republicans have a libertarian wing and a right-wing Christian wing. Likewise, the Dems have the moderate wing and the MIchael Moore crowd. You are the one responsible for Kerry, not the lack of a third party.

If we did have third parties and runoffs, what would happen is that major candidates would have to cater to fringe groups. For instance, in the Ukrainian elections that happened yesterday, the two major candidates will have to cater to the communists who only got 5% of the vote, in order to win in the second round.

If a third party is a viable choice, then by all means, it should be elected. But as it is, we only have fringe groups, and catch-all major parties.

Well, at least we now know your stance is justified.

The Kids have spoken.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasti ... ollresults

Thursday, October 21—Kids may not be eligible to vote for President, but their voices can still be heard. More than half a million kids voted in the Scholastic News presidential election. Some kids mailed in ballots cut from Scholastic News and Junior Scholastic magazines. Others voted online.

Results were announced during opening ceremonies of Democracy Plaza near NBC headquarters in New York City.

"George W. Bush won the kid's election poll with 52 percent of the vote," announced Scholastic Student Reporter David Rush. Senator John Kerry received 47 percent. One percent of the votes were for "other," with quite a few kids writing in "Mom" as their choice for President.

Scholastic News has conducted student election polls since 1940. Poll results, which are not scientific, have reflected actual results in all but two elections: 1948 and 1960. In 1948, kids chose Thomas E. Dewey over winner Harry S. Truman. In 1960, America's classrooms chose Richard M. Nixon over winner John F. Kennedy. Both were close elections. In 2000, student voters chose George W. Bush, mirroring the Electoral College result but not the result of the popular vote.

"The Scholastic Election Poll is a fun way to get young children excited about politics," said Rebecca Bondor, Editor in Chief of Scholastic Classroom Magazines. "I'm very excited about all the enthusiasm that the kids and teachers have shown across the country. I was especially impressed and delighted to see all the boxes and boxes of paper ballots."

Some kids did more than vote. Some drew pictures, while others wrote notes and even letters to send in with their ballots.

"Thank you for listening to what I have to say," said Rosa Ciocca of Missouri, in a letter.

A fourth-grader e-mailed Scholastic News Online, excited about the chance to vote. "It is like I am really voting on November 2, 2004," said Alexa L. Lopez-Gonzalez.

Aimee Sawyer, who drew a picture of President Bush on her letter, said, "Thank you for giving me the chance to 'vote.'"

The ballot counting took four days and 20 journalism students from New York University.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of republican kids out there.

Good News anyway you cut it. One of my big issues with voter turnout in this country is that we run around demanding democratic processes in other countries and then don't really take part in our own. Not this year! I guess all the "Vote or Die" superstar commercials worked. I just hope its not a one time deal and won't fade by the next off-year election.



Hey everyone, take pride in your civic privledges...I'm meeting up with my brother to vote when he gets off work and then we're going out for a celebratory drink because I know large chunks of the world (and sadly part of the U.S.) doesn't have this right yet.

-Dolce

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 4&ncid=716



The gop's will stop at nothing to STEAL this election

Tehe. Mom.

As for there being a lot of Republican kids out there, I don't think you could say there are as many Republican kids out there as there are...kiddies who like what their parents like. And considering they polled fourth graders (?), I wouldn't expect any differently.

As for older students, I'd like to see the results. At my school (senior high) there will be a mock election tomorrow as most students have yet to turn 18 (though there are a few). I live in Texas, so I, of course, expect Bushie to take it, but then again...those angsty, Kerry-supporting teens (me being one of them). Who knows.

"Oops, I did it Again" said the Republican Party:



Who ARE these people? Challenging voters at the stations? This is just wrong. A polling station should be as nuetral and non-invasive as possible.

-Dolce

dolce, drop the farce. Democrats put voting challengers in too.

Just because you don't vote Republican doesn't mean that they're this evil bunch that will do anything to force you vote Democrat.

The candidacy for any political party is defined by a few states, by a few people. Dirty little secret of the election is that people in Iowa (for example) have much more impact on the presidential election then people in my state do. By the time the primaries rolled around there was one viable canidate for the democratic nomination. Viable because the other canidates were so defeated by the previous primaries and corporate and campaign money is already starting to fly. This isn't choice, by the time it got to me, it was business.

This is why we need thrid parties. It speaks to why the primary process does not work as intended anymore.

Well, the fact is that kids usually like what their parents like. I know my sister (8 years old) voted at her school. She voted for John Kerry, and my parents are always talking and they are voting for John Kerry. If you came to my area, you would see more votes for George W. Bush overall. Our area is basically republican.

We had a election in our high school last Friday. John Kerry beat Bush 62% to 38%.

Hey. I didn't say everyone was, just apparently the people that cared enough to push this through the courts. C'mon, there is nothing you could possibly say to defend a bunch of people that literally went through the judiciary system ahead of time to try and locate themselves at polling stations to challenge incoming voters.

I know what goes on after the fact. You think I don't remeber how debateable the staus of a chad and an out-of-state ballot can be. I know there are already plenty of party individuals that "guard" the stations, including the 2000 Dems that are apparently going up there too. But that is a far cry from literally announcing in court that your main purpose for entering the stations en masse is to "challenge" people's right to vote before the fact. Sorry Krem, its now a *farce* they outright admitted and proclaimed what they were going to do ahead of time. And no I don't think its the entire party, I think its about the 3,500 people who actually rallied themselves behind this and are going to go do it. Had you been able to, I'm sure you would have gone, voted for Bush, maybe hung out at a street corner near by with a sign for awhile, and then gone on your merry way, and that's fine. That's what people shoulkd do, I'm not against rallies, etc. But admit it, this is in a league of its own, and I'm shocked the courts overturned there ruling against it yesterday.

All this means is that if Bush carries Ohio, people will doubt its legitimacy. He could win be a small margin (which it will be, otherwise Ohio would not have been considered such a swing state) and its going to take months of challenges and re-challenges ala Florida style 2000 before the official call is held in his favor. Then we will still have 4 more years of people thinking it was an illegitimate victory. These people are basically going to 1. Undermine Bush's power if he wins, and 2. Are undermining the voting process in general.

-Dolce

They went to court to confirm that they have the right to put the challengers in, by law. They do. Now, both the Ohio law and the courts agree on that.

I fail to see how Bush carrying Ohio will mar the vote results. The Democrats are putting the challengers too, upwards of 2000 (though the Times article conviniently singled out the GOPs in the headline). So by your own logic, if Kerry wins Ohio, the results will be marred too. I guess the only logical alternative is for Badnarik to win it, causing Ohio to be the butt of all jokes for the next 4 years.

We do have third parties. They're just not viable, and it is their fault.

The primary process does need reworking, I agree with that. But it's up to the states to do that, I guess.

Hey, I thought as you did in the earlier article (which is why I reposted it) that this was a problem of the Democrats, and I didn't know why the G.O.P had been singled out. But if you had finished reading the sentence, it said those 2000 were not going to challenge voters. If we find out they did in the aftermath, than yes, it will undermine Kerry's victory should he have one too. I don't really like the idea of hordes of people from either group flocking to staions because of the intimidation element, but if one group has said they are their to defend voter's rights (vs. challenge) I guess that's a bit better.

And where in the law does it say a group of individuals (not voter officials) have the right to challenge other voters' rights to vote in a non-threatening environment?

You know, for a bunch of people clamoring for free and clean elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, there sure are some American citizens that don't seem to think we should have them here at home.

-Dolce

There's more to the newspaper world than the NY Times: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=1 ... ategory=11

Ohio law allows political parties to place “challengers” in each precinct to monitor the election process. Both parties have rushed to register official challengers with county election boards around the state.

Here's a more detailed explanation of what the challengers can and can't do: [url=http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1023votingbox.html?UrAuth=aN%60NUOcNVUbTTUWUXUUUZTZU\UWU_U_UZUaUaUcTYWVVZV]Link[/url]

Well you know Krem, there are anti-sodomy laws in some states too, and it says alot to me about the people who actually choose to reinforce those. This law existing doesn't mean it is right and can't be changed (hence the court ruling yesterday), nor does it mean that if it isn't changed that I have all that much respect for people that capitalize on it. That is a personal opinion, and as I stated above, either party that actually deters voters from the stations is going to be undermining the legitimacy not only of the candidate's prospective victory, but of voting and the Democratic process in general.

-Dolce

Umm.... didja know that in Rhode Island, its illegal for people outside of wedlock to have sex, and if you do, you get fined 10 dollars if caught.

This law i read a long time ago .... in Washington, if you're a virgin, you can't have sex ... even if you get married .. go somewhere else ...

quite funny when I read about them ..

anyhoo, election today?

Anti-sodomy laws are not constitutional. There's nothing unconstitutional about this one. Say, if I came in with someone else's voting registration card and went on to get the ballot, and someone saw me and remembered that I am not a citizen, why shouldn't they be allowed to challenge my vote?

Those challengers still have to show a just cause to challenge the vote, you know.

That's what voting officials are for, and there are plenty designated ones already at each site. You know that this is something else. These are not the officials and they have neither the training nor a nuetral investigation in mind and you know it.