The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 12:10:43 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 4, 2008 12:10:43 GMT -5
Why am I not surprised that people bash the caucus system because it did not give the result they wanted? Face it, Obama and Huckabee each won handily, according to the rules in place. Different rules will be in place in New Hampshire so we'll see what happens. Obama's my favorite candidate, and as a liberal I love the idea of Huckabee winning the Republican nomination. The fact that the caucus gave the exact result I wanted doesn't change the fact that I think the system is horribly undemocratic.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 12:43:17 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 4, 2008 12:43:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 12:58:43 GMT -5
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 4, 2008 12:58:43 GMT -5
TheStig - I was in NZed in 2000 DURING the Bush-Gore election! Talk about the Kiwis being aghast ... I have never seen such a pall hang over a place after an election (well, other than DC in 2004). They simply could not believe that Americans would elect someone who can't pronounce basic words. It would have been funny ... if it wasn't so sad. They were genuinely concerned that Bush would reduce America's standing in the world, damage the economy, bring about war, and reverse decades of environmental protection progress. I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000.
Speaking of NZ, I was very impressed by their coverage of our elections - thought it was better than we do it, actually. I was also highly impressed by their mixed-member-proportional voting system. Last I checked, the same government has been there since 1999 led by Helen Clark - is that still the case? The thing I liked best about MMP was a) it allowed the Greens a few seats in Parliament, and b) it allowed Nandor Tanchos (sp?) a seat: the only rastafarian in Parliament.
Primaries and voting in America are way out of whack and stuck in some very antiquated notions of representative democracy. We're in need of a major overhaul. I'd start by making election day a national, paid holiday to increase voter turnout, and keep it mid-week so people don't use it as an excuse for a long weekend.
The results in Iowa are interesting but not unexpected. I'm looking forward to Feb 5. It's like the starting conference play.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 13:14:40 GMT -5
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 4, 2008 13:14:40 GMT -5
Smart people, those Kiwis.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -5
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 4, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 13:40:39 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Jan 4, 2008 13:40:39 GMT -5
(SNIP) I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000. Why does this happen? Really, if someone traveled here and announced that they were from anywhere except Iran or North Korea, would I really treat them differently? I was in London a few months ago, waiting to see the House of Commons, and Venezuelans were in front of me. I think that Chavez is a raging nutball, but I didn't really think negatively of them because of where they were from. How is this acceptable?
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 13:48:56 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Jan 4, 2008 13:48:56 GMT -5
I read yesterday that the grand tradition of "caucuses" in Iowa was first used way way back in ... 1972. Prior to that they had primaries like everyone else I guess.
The cumbersomeness was intentionally designed by the Democrat party bosses to prevent Cradle 'Crats from showing up for a few minutes and choosing the "wrong" candidate, one who wasn't aligned with the Party's interests.
I think the process is even more warped today by the number of people who turned out seemingly just to mug for the cameras. It's like American Idol auditions, but with even less talent.
On the bright side, I think enough people have become disillusioned with Iowa/NH this spring that there might still be a competitive primary in which voters in the later-voting states can actually participate this year.
Also, if I remember my various comparative politics courses correctly, MMP is generally regarded as the least stable form of government imaginable, because it extends disproportionate influence to the fringes of the political spectrum (e.g., Rastafarians and neo-fascists) and therefore only works in highly homogenous societies like New Zealand. In places like Italy and Israel, not so well. Naturally, it's what the experts in the State Dept suggested for implementing "democracy" in Iraq.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 14:32:15 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jan 4, 2008 14:32:15 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of any candidate from either side. Everyone obviously wants the "perfect" choice, most likely someone who thinks exaclty like they do, or at least agrees with them on all of the major issues. My biggest complaint is that we really do need a viable third party, because with what we have now, we are essentially stuck with an either/or decision. In all but a handful of elections nationally, a vote for any candidate other than the democrat or republican is essentially a wasted vote. I think a viable third party, would have multiple benefits. Obviously, anytime the third party candidate wins, then we have made some degree of progress. But additionally, the mere presence of a third party candidate with a reasonable shot at election would cause the main two parties to adjust their strategy and more importantly become more widely appealing. But as it is now, in many cases, there is not incentive because all a candidate has to do is be the lesser of two evils. That is a flawed system in my mind.
As for Iowa, I don't put much stock in it. Bill Clinton lost Iowa. George HW Bush lost Iowa to Dole. So from both sides of the political aisle, there is plenty of precedent for not reading too much into the Iowa outcome.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 14:36:47 GMT -5
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Jan 4, 2008 14:36:47 GMT -5
I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000. Ughh. So what? This type of smug sentiment has been around for the last eight years as a cheap potshot for the rest of the world to lob at the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. Excorcist is right; apparently the only country for whom this type of blanket criticism is acceptable is the United States. I know very few Americans, and even fewer who are educated as well as we have been fortunate enough to become, who would ever think poorly of someone because of his/her country's policies. However, U.S. citizens aren't willing to call out this kind of criticism for what it is: petty xenophobic bitterness/jealousy. What's worse is that people like C2C even more smugly hold it up as a shining example that America/Americans need to change, as if living away from these shores somehow automatically makes a foreigner an expert on what the United States needs to be. What a load of hypocrisy! One of the greatest things about America is that debate works, in that it peacefully brings about change when change is wanted, and this has been going on longer here than in any other country in the world. I didn't mean for this to sound as rah-rah-USA as it might, but while Iowa may be mildly retarded, I'm not going to let a potential rise in the smug of a foreign country affect my opinion of the political reality in the States. Americans who have let that happen over the past eight years should grow some stones and let the debate end at our shores. ON EDIT: Good post Rosslyn, especially the bit about the MMP. A little analysis goes a long way, and it makes C2C and his admiration of such a blindingly wonderful system seem a bit like Sean Penn and others who travel to Venezuala and the like to proclaim to America how "reasonable" people like Chavez are (although not to that extreme, of course).
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 14:41:18 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 4, 2008 14:41:18 GMT -5
My biggest problem with the caucus system is the whole neighborly "convincing" that goes on. I was saying all day yesterday that the one thing I trust less than the average American's ability to make a decision is a group of the average Americans' ability to make a decision.
Voting is a solo activity as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 14:42:00 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 4, 2008 14:42:00 GMT -5
To those bitching about the caucus system, I'll agree it's far from ideal. There are countless issues we could discuss, but I think the issue of anonymous voting is overblown. I'll grant that when designing an election system, anonymous voting is preferable -- look to recent or upcoming elections in Venezuela or Pakistan and the reasons become obvious.
But anonymity doesn't serve much of a purpose in Iowa. In an era when political opinions consist mainly of people regurgitating what they have "learned" from the NYT, cable news, or a partisan blog, it is nice to see some human discourse in the realm of politics (even if most of the interactors are simply regurgitating what they read on DailyKos). I think the "hectoring" of others is overblown -- Des Moines is not Karachi, so nobody is going to get shot for voting for Obama, and it is unlawful to fire someone solely because he/she voted for Huckabee. If a voter is worried mommy and daddy will cut back your allowance, my advice is to grow a pair. What's so wrong with having one's opinion tested by the words of other voters? Democracy is hard work, as someone wiser than myself once said -- and this democracy has been getting by because of people who refused to be badgered, despite much badgering, for 200+ years.
Someone always disagrees with me in this democracy, but I wouldn't change my opinion just because some crazy in a Mike Gravel shirt yells at me in a high school atrium, just as I don't change my opinion based on "haranguing" from Bill O'Reilly, Wonkette, the Weekly Standard, the NYT editorial page, candidates' TV campaign ads, interest group campaign ads, HoyaTalk, Lou Dobbs, my parents, or any other preachy-ass source. So the assumption that democracy in Iowa can be hijacked by a few milquetoasts badgered into voting for Kucinich is quite unrealistic.
Hope y'all never have kids -- those PTA meetings where anyone gets to speak are going to drive y'all nutty. Not to mention every business presentation for the rest of your life, where others are going to question your ideas. We don't live our lives in an anonymous fashion -- in a free society in midwestern America we don't have to vote that way either.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 14:58:09 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Jan 4, 2008 14:58:09 GMT -5
To those bitching about the caucus system, I'll agree it's far from ideal. There are countless issues we could discuss, but I think the issue of anonymous voting is overblown. I'll grant that when designing an election system, anonymous voting is preferable -- look to recent or upcoming elections in Venezuela or Pakistan and the reasons become obvious. But anonymity doesn't serve much of a purpose in Iowa. In an era when political opinions consist mainly of people regurgitating what they have "learned" from the NYT, cable news, or a partisan blog, it is nice to see some human discourse in the realm of politics (even if most of the interactors are simply regurgitating what they read on DailyKos). I think the "hectoring" of others is overblown -- Des Moines is not Karachi, so nobody is going to get shot for voting for Obama, and it is unlawful to fire someone solely because he/she voted for Huckabee. If a voter is worried mommy and daddy will cut back your allowance, my advice is to grow a pair. What's so wrong with having one's opinion tested by the words of other voters? Democracy is hard work, as someone wiser than myself once said -- and this democracy has been getting by because of people who refused to be badgered, despite much badgering, for 200+ years. Someone always disagrees with me in this democracy, but I wouldn't change my opinion just because some crazy in a Mike Gravel shirt yells at me in a high school atrium, just as I don't change my opinion based on "haranguing" from Bill O'Reilly, Wonkette, the Weekly Standard, the NYT editorial page, candidates' TV campaign ads, interest group campaign ads, HoyaTalk, Lou Dobbs, my parents, or any other preachy-ass source. So the assumption that democracy in Iowa can be hijacked by a few milquetoasts badgered into voting for Kucinich is quite unrealistic. Hope y'all never have kids -- those PTA meetings where anyone gets to speak are going to drive y'all nutty. Not to mention every business presentation for the rest of your life, where others are going to question your ideas. We don't live our lives in an anonymous fashion -- in a free society in midwestern America we don't have to vote that way either. I'll see your PTA meeting and raise you a condo board. There was a forty-minute discussion on how best to put up signage to best distinguish ground floor units from upper-level ones. And my most memorable times at work have been spirited give-and-takes with others. But there's a difference between debate and voting. I can say on this board that I'm a big Giuliani fan, but when I go into that voting booth, it's just me. My vote is accountable and known only to me and to whatever higher power(s) got Georgetown to the Final Four last year. I still think that caucusing is horribly undemocratic, and that it's most dangerous for those who are least likely to vote. If your union trucks you somewhere and tells you to vote, they can't see who you vote for (cell phones are banned in voting areas in Virginia). A domineering spouse or parent makes "growing a pair" difficult. I'd guess that many would consider an election to be a battle that's not worth fighting. The fact that it even is considered in that light is awful and drops democracy on the list. There's plenty of the haranguing outside the polling places (and I've done it once), and there's plenty of time to talk to those who are undecided and do your best to convince them. But, in the end, there's only you voting, and that's the way it should be.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 15:05:14 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 4, 2008 15:05:14 GMT -5
TheStig - I was in NZed in 2000 DURING the Bush-Gore election! Talk about the Kiwis being aghast ... I have never seen such a pall hang over a place after an election (well, other than DC in 2004). They simply could not believe that Americans would elect someone who can't pronounce basic words. It would have been funny ... if it wasn't so sad. They were genuinely concerned that Bush would reduce America's standing in the world, damage the economy, bring about war, and reverse decades of environmental protection progress. I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000. Speaking of NZ, I was very impressed by their coverage of our elections - thought it was better than we do it, actually. I was also highly impressed by their mixed-member-proportional voting system. Last I checked, the same government has been there since 1999 led by Helen Clark - is that still the case? The thing I liked best about MMP was a) it allowed the Greens a few seats in Parliament, and b) it allowed Nandor Tanchos (sp?) a seat: the only rastafarian in Parliament. Primaries and voting in America are way out of whack and stuck in some very antiquated notions of representative democracy. We're in need of a major overhaul. I'd start by making election day a national, paid holiday to increase voter turnout, and keep it mid-week so people don't use it as an excuse for a long weekend. The results in Iowa are interesting but not unexpected. I'm looking forward to Feb 5. It's like the starting conference play. I didn't find my reception as an American to be too cold. The Kiwis were eager to know what I thought of Bush and co., and once they found out that I shared most of their views regarding our government they seemed more sympathetic than anything else. MMP is a nifty system, since it does break the two-party gridlock while still allowing everybody to have a local representative. It might not be a bad way to elect the House here in the US. Of course, it would never happen because the two parties would never vote in a system that broke their stranglehold on power. The story of how it came about in NZ is rather comical. Both the major parties opposed MMP, but they had to promise a referendum on it because they had criticized the other party for not offering a referendum! www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.htmlAs for Kiwis' foresight, it was impressively matched by The Onion in January 2001: www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 15:19:53 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jan 4, 2008 15:19:53 GMT -5
The President is elected via electoral votes, not popular votes. Delegates are chosen in Iowa this year by caucuses, not primaries. All candidates know the rules ahead of time. That being the case there is no room for griping about the results. If you want the rules changed in Iowa, move there and work to bring about the change. If you want Presidential elections by popular vote, start working to amend the constitution. Despite what some have said, it's merely sour grapes. By the way I would not have voted for either Obama or Huckabee.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 15:56:04 GMT -5
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Jan 4, 2008 15:56:04 GMT -5
The President is elected via electoral votes, not popular votes. Delegates are chosen in Iowa this year by caucuses, not primaries. All candidates know the rules ahead of time. That being the case there is no room for griping about the results. If you want the rules changed in Iowa, move there and work to bring about the change. If you want Presidential elections by popular vote, start working to amend the constitution. Despite what some have said, it's merely sour grapes. By the way I would not have voted for either Obama or Huckabee. Thanks for the U.S. Civics 101, ed. Iowa can do what it wants, but that doesn't mean the rest of the country should afford it such an influential position in the elections. And you're wrong, it's not sour grapes.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 16:40:09 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Jan 4, 2008 16:40:09 GMT -5
Whatever I may think of the system and its myriad flaws, any process in which 2/3 of an electorate are anti-Clinton is damn near perfect to me.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 17:16:43 GMT -5
Post by SDHoya on Jan 4, 2008 17:16:43 GMT -5
TheStig - I was in NZed in 2000 DURING the Bush-Gore election! Talk about the Kiwis being aghast ... I have never seen such a pall hang over a place after an election (well, other than DC in 2004). They simply could not believe that Americans would elect someone who can't pronounce basic words. It would have been funny ... if it wasn't so sad. They were genuinely concerned that Bush would reduce America's standing in the world, damage the economy, bring about war, and reverse decades of environmental protection progress. I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000. Speaking of NZ, I was very impressed by their coverage of our elections - thought it was better than we do it, actually. I was also highly impressed by their mixed-member-proportional voting system. Last I checked, the same government has been there since 1999 led by Helen Clark - is that still the case? The thing I liked best about MMP was a) it allowed the Greens a few seats in Parliament, and b) it allowed Nandor Tanchos (sp?) a seat: the only rastafarian in Parliament. Primaries and voting in America are way out of whack and stuck in some very antiquated notions of representative democracy. We're in need of a major overhaul. I'd start by making election day a national, paid holiday to increase voter turnout, and keep it mid-week so people don't use it as an excuse for a long weekend. The results in Iowa are interesting but not unexpected. I'm looking forward to Feb 5. It's like the starting conference play. I certainly cannot speak to your experiences, but I have never had a problem as an American traveling abroad. I have not been to NZ, but I studied in both Spain and Italy, and have travelled to quite a few other places all around the world. I have always found that while people were very anti-Bush, they seperated their disdain for the current state of American politics with their opinion of individual Americans. As long as you are polite, make and attempt at speaking their language (even if all you know is a few words) and generally don't act like a jack@ss, people usually are fascinated by you, just as many Americans are when a foreigner comes to travel or study in the USA. That being said, the caucuses are a joke. Iowans seem ok though. ;D
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 18:34:36 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 4, 2008 18:34:36 GMT -5
The President is elected via electoral votes, not popular votes. Delegates are chosen in Iowa this year by caucuses, not primaries. All candidates know the rules ahead of time. That being the case there is no room for griping about the results. If you want the rules changed in Iowa, move there and work to bring about the change. If you want Presidential elections by popular vote, start working to amend the constitution. Despite what some have said, it's merely sour grapes. By the way I would not have voted for either Obama or Huckabee. Again, I got the ideal result and I still think the system sucks. It's not that it's unfair to one candidate or another, it's just undemocratic and against the principles of one man, one vote that are so vital to this country. It's hypocritical for the US to appoint itself as the protector and spreader of democracy in the world when our own system is so undemocratic. "That's just the way it is" shouldn't be an excuse to undermine the core values your country is built on.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 19:18:16 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jan 4, 2008 19:18:16 GMT -5
I thought we were a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 19:27:04 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 4, 2008 19:27:04 GMT -5
I thought we were a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Tell that to our President! In all seriousness I'm using 'democracy' in the broad sense - as a synonym for representative government. To a nit-picker it might not be the most accurate term, but it is the one that's most common in political talk these days.
|
|