August 09, 2004

• I find it disgusting (and amazing) that Congress can simply shut off funding to the UN when they disagree with a decision. I guess they the UN is OK, as long as it makes the "right" decisions (pun somewhat intentional). We helped to create the organization, alongside our worst enemies (China, The Soviet Union, and France). If nothing else, honor should require that we fund it, but I guess there's no honor left in our government.
• France is the "worst enemy" when the UN was created? I see teaching of history hasn't improved in the US.
• Maybe that was over the "freedom frankfurters" fiasco?
• No, roly - that was the germans. They're next on the list.
• We've always been at war with France...
• Please God, let the observers come to Florida. They can even stay at my house, if necessary.
• Yay! This is such good news. I'm so happy, I'm emailing this article to everybody.
• We've always been at war with France... Think again, rebel. Those absolutist bastards fought your revolution for you - and we were winning at the time, too. And then they sent you a statue. /joking Canadian ribbing But about the serious stuff, I am heartened to hear that the election will be monitored. More about the OSCE.
• drivingmenuts: "Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections" Here's my take on it - impartiality. If they funded the monitoring, people would potentially cry foul if something didn't go right and would then blame the people in charge because they funded it in the first place. But, that's my take from reading only an article. I'd have to read the actual proceedings.
• Given that America has a long history of -- to be polite about it -- 'botched' elections, this seems a long-overdue and wonderful thing. Next: doing away with the Electoral College? The time when 'one person, one vote' could mean something seems a bit closer now, but will anyone go for it?
• what's to monitor? Everybody pushes the little button on the voting machine, the records have no paper trail, and Mr. Diebold rigs the electon for Li'l Shrub. simple.
• I was once an advocate for direct democracy. Historically, the idea of a representative democracy was couch in the idea that the American population was primarily rural and agrarian, and sending a represntative to Congress assured that one's political will could be heard far away. Today, however, with the communcative technologies we have, representation has become rather superfluous. As simple a technology as a phone and a PIN number could allow each individual to vote on the items of the day directly. However, Fareed Zakaria's new book makes the case against what he terms illiberal democracy. True direct democracy is subject to the whim of a undereducated and prejudicial public and (as Zakaria claims, a claim I find to have at least some merit) the will of the majority can be to the detriment of the minority. What if, for example, the majority voted to disenfranchise certain groups? Imagine what a direct vote on Civil Rights legislation in the 60s might have accomplished. Or to eliminate taxes completely? What a representative democracy still may do is keep the mass of voters from doing wrong. However, our representatives have proved themselves all-too-vulnerable to the financial ebbs and flows of DC lobbying and campaigning. Money, rather than principle, calls the tune. Subsequently, I am reminded of the old quote concerning capitalism, in that it is the worst system of economics - except for all the others. Our deomocracy might be flawed (and personally, if the UN wants to come in and monitor our elections, more power to them I say), but it is yet the best example and best *functioning* system of power transfer in the world, Diebold or no.
• I'd always thought the old saw was Churchill's: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." is capitalism the original?
• ilyadeux, you might be right. I'd always heard it said in conjunction with capitalism.
• Fes - I definately agree with the overall meaning of your post, but I think it goes a bit far to name US democracy specifically as the best functioning in the world, especially as the rest of us in parliamentary systems find they work just as well, despite being quite different. (I have heard good arguments on how British style parliamentary systems can be more efficient (for good or bad) - the US system has checks and balances that keep it stable, but which can also at times paralyse the government's ability to bring in changes - sometimes a good thing, sometimes bad.) If you mean representational democracy in general, that I could agree with. (Sorry - it's just a pet peeve of mine to hear US democracy spoken of as if it were the only kind of functioning democracy in the world. I probably would only be more annoyed if I were Icelandic, since they have the oldest : )
• jb: my apologies. I tend to forget that there are some perfectly orderly non-American democracies out there. And I know screw-all about Parliamentary government in general, an intellectual hole I hope to fill. The impetus behind my statement was a comment by someone or other who said that the American system of government is the one that best handles the transfer of power, which is historically the sticky point of all governments. Since our founding, not one outgoing president (or congressman or Senator, as far as I can recollect) has tried to retain the office after losing an election, by any means (violence being the traditional). They bitch, they complain, sometimes they come back - but ultimately, they clear out and make way for the next guy.
• [total derail] Honestly, if I thought there would have been a challenge to the two-term limit, I would have guessed that it would have come from the Clinton administration: a young guy, capable president, popular at home and abroad, certainly not without more work to do. If anyone could have challenged the constitutional limit, I think it could have been Clinton.
• In those cases, I think the British (or Canadian) parliamentary system (the ones I know best)* might actually be even a bit better at that kind of transfer of power, as the monarch (or her representative) is responsible for ensuring that the duly elected party forms the new government. In Canada, the elections are all run by a politically neutral organisation, and the military swear loyalty not to the government but to the Queen, and thus to the Governor General in her stead, so it would be very difficult to use them to bolster any attempt at a coup. Certainly the last coup in Britain was the English civil war, which one could argue was a coup against an evil wannabe dictator. Or, at least, I would argue so, because I am "right and repulsive." : ) Democracies are so young that we don't even quite know how they work. The US has not had anything happen yet (though Nixon alledgedly tried to subvert the process, JFK may have had Chicago (and thus the presidency) handed to him, and I'm sure Diebold would love to give states to the Republicans), but who is to say what happens in the future? All of our democracies need to be on watch against possible subversion or revolt against the democratic process. Frankly, we had our own shame up here in Quebec, where the seperatists finnagled the votes, but fortunately they still lost. If they had won, and then the questionable parts of the vote had been revealed, I don't know what would have happened. *Other commonwealth countries have different systems, some based on the parliament, but many also with a president, which is a very different set up from having a non-elected, non-political Governor General.