November 08, 2004

• I'm sorry, but I am way past giving a single 'nother fuck about this crap during this particular week. Please examine your genitals with a speculum and post it here maybe next week. We are all very very very tired of this.
• The above comment was presumptuous but heartfelt.
• It's late, it's sunday. Go drink some beer or something.
• Or go drive a tractor.
• (Yes, it is unique, but not for the federal thing -- You live North of Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, man.
• Woah. I think Wolof is channelling me. Er, the answer is basically, yes & no. Somebody else will no doubt go into the details of it, I am far too busy examining my genitals with a speculum.
• Or go check what the state regulations are in Nebraska.
• Oh, and go check the Wikipedia on world governments.
• Nothing whatsoever against you, sbutler, but we're saturated now. Enough. Think ahead.
• I'm not really speaking for others, I'm minor royalty.
• Hey, I thought it would be an interesting question to get others opinions on (I'm interested at least). If it's going to generate this much hostility, then I invite someone to come in and delete it.
• I'm just being an asshole. Carry on.
• I'm too lazy to get into the details of Canadian government, but here's a pamphlet: How Canadians Govern Themselves. There's even a section that explains the differences between US and Canuck government. (It's something to do with how a Prime Minister is not allowed to bludgeon citizens while a President is, or something. I'm too busy drinking and driving a tractor whilst examining my genitals with a speculum. And eating Timbits. In the house that Jack built.)
• It is actually interesting. But I'm tired too. Canada is a Federation of Provinces, and the constitution defines (not quite clearly) what is of federal resort (Bridges, Defence, Trade, Foreign Policy) and what is of Provincial resort (Education, Healthcare, etc.) A lot of canadian politics devolve around the fact that our constitution is not very clear what exactly is Provincial competence, and that it says "well, whatever we didn't think of in 1867 or didn't exist then, is Federal". So the two levels of government are constantly involved in turf wars. That, and Quebec.
• Oh, and other countries sometimes have credible, multiple parties. So you can vote NDP, and have a fighting chance of electing someone, even if you don't live in Vermont. France is also very different. They do have President with huge powers (according to the constitution, he could declare state of emergency and virtually become a dictator), and people actually vote for Communist, Socialist (Mitterand, president for 14 years, was one) or different shades of right-wing candidates. Their Presidents had 7 years terms, but they recently cut back to 5.
• New Zealand is too complicated for my tired brain and fingers to explain right now, but google for "mixed member parliament site:.nz" sometime.
• More-than-figurehead president/head of state: common, but not necessarily the norm. Two-tier legislature: also common but not necessarily the norm. Cabinet members who are not members of the legislature: weird by Westminster democracy standards if not downright unconsitutional, dunno about other democracies. Federalism: Germany, Australia come to mind immediately, even the Russian republic. Electoral college: my goodness that's strange. Election of judges, sherrifs, DAs, dog-catchers: incredibly strange. For comparison, New Zealand has one Parliament - no upper house. About ten years ago we adopted a form of proportional representation (MMP) which encourages minor parties and has somewhat broken the two-party system. The head of state is a ceremonial figurehead (the Governor-General, notionally the Queen's representative). Executive power (the cabinet) is vested in senior members of the governing bloc in the legislature, and the head of the executive (the Prime Minister) is the person who can prove to the Governor-general that they can form the largest voting bloc in Parliament (in practice, the leader of the Members of Parliament of the largest party). Governments serve up to three year terms, until: - three years are up - they lose a "vote of confidence" in the Parliament - they lose a vote for supply (in other words, they can't pass a budget) - they decide to call an election early. In the case of loss of a confidence or supply vote, elections happen if no-one can cobble together a coalition that will enjoy confidence. This hasn't happened in my lifetime, although there have been a few close calls. Judges are chosen by the goverment on advice from civil servants, and their term ensures that they are around to annoy successive goverments of a different political stripe. And we have a "loyal Opposition". It is the job of non-Goverment members of the Parliament to badger, criticise and annoy. If they aren't trying their hardest to make the Government look like fools then they are failing in their job. Lastly, I could not believe it when I finally figured out that the US Congress has this practise of tacking on unrelated clauses to legislation ("I voted for what!?"). It's so wrongheaded an idea I was sure I had misunderstood.
• ...how foreigners view the American government system... With incredulity, fear, and trembling.

• Governments serve up to three year terms, until:

  • three years are up
  • they lose a "vote of confidence" in the Parliament
  • they lose a vote for supply (in other words, they can't pass a budget)
  • they decide to call an election early.

  Wow, sometimes I wish the US elected officials job depended on passing a budget. It seems lately that the US Congress has shutdown several times because of this failure. And my current job working for a state University was delayed a bit because the state couldn't pass its budget until a month past the deadline. That was very informative vitalorgnz.
• finger slipped... yeah, that's it
• In Australia, our elections are run by an independent, transparent and widely respected electoral commission, and everybody is fairly sure that the government we have is the one we voted for (not that it makes the fuckers much better than Bushco, but at least we deserve 'em.)
• ..how foreigners view the American government system.. Here's an account of an African observer's point of view of the polls.
• Wikipedia- Westminster system is a good primer on how the British (and by extension, many Commonwealth) parliamentary systems work.
• Looks like a circus from where I'm sitting.
• Most watch it on television, I assume.
• Although I'm not even minor royalty, I hereby recast the question as: Resolved: "The United States would be better off, less divided, less prone to being diverted by fring groups as it now is, if it were to switch to a parliamentary system of government." Discuss.
• "fring" == "fringe" misspelled. Even royalty can be mistaken. You see, after making that spelling error, I decided I should find a way to become more respectable, and now, thanks to the interweb and my charge card, you may address me as Laird El_Hombre.
• Walter Williams, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington wrote a book 'Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy' In the book he goes into in-depth analysis of this country's form of government, how it works (and doesn't work) and gave examples of how easy it was to 'rig the system' given it's poorly thought out structure. He advocated going to a parliamentary form of government, the same type that most countries around the world have. He also stated that since this countrie's creation, no other country has instituted our form of government. There's a reason for it. Ours does not work, and since Reaganism, what little effectiveness it had was killed. Anyone who's lived as an adult before Reaganism and afterwards has seen that for themselves. Anyone else, well they've never seen what was a somewhat effective democracy get totally and completly buggered. So for those that still think electronic voting machines are okay, that the movement of the democractic party further and further right (can it go further *still*?), is nothing to be concerned about, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. People in this country are pissed, and they have every good reason to be pissed, and I hope ultimatly it generates a reaction not seen since the original revolutionary war. Lastly, let's all take a poke at Wikipedia and type in 'Fascism'. Gee, what do you know, fits like a glove . . .
• We are allowed to right turn on red in Iowa. Also in Iowa, we don't elect judges to the bench, but we do vote on retaining them. Of course, it's nearly impossible to get any relevant information. The only thing I could find on this year's judges was that the Iowa Bar Association recommended to keep them all and that the state homophobes were trying to oust one for granting a divorce to a lesbian couple.
• Resolved: "The United States would be better off, less divided, less prone to being diverted by fring groups as it now is, if it were to switch to a parliamentary system of government." I would just love to see the president have to get up in front of the legislative body every week and defend his actions. ANY president. But especially Bush. It would give the citizenry a much better idea of what kind of leaders their leaders actually are. If the citizenry could tear its overweight ass away from the cheese dip and that WifeSwapping reality show.
• Didn't the British invent the wife-swapping reality show?
• I dunno, Tenacious, I think that the American people, by-and-large don't care one little bit whether or not their President can defend his actions. It's enough that he has faith that he's right. Questioning his decisions just shows a lack of moral character from the people asking.
• I would just love to see the president have to get up in front of the legislative body every week and defend his actions. "Ministers Questions" in the U.S. would be so cool and would make for amazing, high-ratings TV. Picture "Jerry Springer" meets "The Practice". Forget how this gets legally enacted, I say just go ahead and schedule it for Spring TV Sweeps week, and it will be done.
• FYKshun I don't think it's so much that people don't care one little bit, but that so many really feel disconnected and irrelevent to 'the system' these days. I think that middle america really does care, more than many may be aware. Think of all the soldiers overseas right now and the fact that a significant amount of them come from the midwest. I think they care very much, and did before this election, now that they've experienced the horror of knowing their sons and daughters may not make it home alive I think they care more still. I think now that their voices have been overriden that they care that much more. I also think that anyone who slants democratic cares very much too, but after this election the consensus seems to be that many more democrats than ever before feel alienated from the only political party that had any meaning to them. I for one am in that camp. When Kerry conceded so readily the day after the election it just confirmed a feeling I've had for many years now: middle and lower class america do not matter to either party.
• I didn't meant to imply that the American people don't care at all, mk1gti, just that they don't care whether or not the President can defend himself and his actions in a spontaneous forum where he's forced to think on his feet and respond without speechwriters and teleprompters.
• Didn't the British invent the wife-swapping reality show? Yes. Damn you RDF Media, damn you all the way to hell.
• Oh come on - it's still better than survivor :) I like it better than many reality shows - it's all about the most important thing in the world - how families live - and no one gets unnecessarily voted off.
• do you know how to catch a unique government? unique up on it
• *snorts red wine*