Constitutional monarchy or republic?

by witchfinder Fri May 25, 2012 10:17 am

First topic message reminder :

This topic or subject is actualy about the head of state of the United KIngdom and 15 other independent sovereign nations including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

In 1981 this question was put to me: "are you a true and loyal supporter of the British Crown and constitution", and my reply was "yes" I am, and in doing so I actualy made an oath of loyalty not to any politician, but to The Crown, the people and the nation.

The Crown and the monarchy are not democratic in the sense that no one ever elects them, but then again what system, or which sytem of government is truly fair and democratic ?, in the United States 45% of serving soldiers, airforce staff and sailors voted Republican in 2008, yet they have to swear alliegence to President Obama, in many unstable nations this situation is a recipe for civil war.

Today ( 25th May 2012 ) the latest opinion poll has been published in the UK on the subject of the monarchy, the findings have been released just prior to nationwide celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.

The first thing to point out about this opinion poll is that the monarchy enjoys solid support amongst Labour voters and supporters, the Queen and the institution of the monarchy has never been so popular.
Support is strong in Scotland, Wales, all areas of England and in every age group and social class, but the findings are not good reading for Charlie, most people feel the line of succession should jump a generation and go to William.

Should TRUE Labour supporters be embaressed about been a supporter of the Queen and the monarchy ?, I say absolutely not, it is clearly obvious that to go down the path of republicanism would lose both support and votes, just as it did to the SNP in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

And so as my next door neighbour who is chairman of the local Conservative club puts out his flags for the celebrations, so shall I, and as a Labour supporter and voter we are both equal in one nation under one Crown.

by **Ivan** Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Phil. As you can see through the Tory Party and its naked greed, asset stripping, dishonesty, incompetence and corruption, I’m surprised that you’re taken in by the Mrs Windsor myth. What exactly has she done for the last 60 years? We don’t really know because so much of her life is kept secret.

Mrs W doesn’t express her views in public, but that doesn’t mean she is restrained in private. Keeping her trap shut in public isn’t proof of impartiality. So who can say how ‘impartial’ she is? That’s probably just a fictional notion held together by state secrecy. Given her access to government, that’s a worry in a so-called democracy. And that’s the bottom line – either we’re in a democracy and elect both of our legislatures and our head of state, or we aren’t. At the moment we aren’t.

by astra Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:16 pm

Don't you think, Ivan, with less pomp and circumstance, and cutting down the number of "hangers on" that the amounts of cash have been cut?

I have seen (with disgust) the actions of various "lord mayors", and can only see, human nature what it is, this behaviour being E X P A N D E D many times by a president.

Hell, Tony Blair was only mooted as being president of europe and the media was ful of him sitting in a "Presidential Jet". OK, that may be rumpy's jet now I have no idea.

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:18 pm

"That’s probably just a fictional notion held together by state secrecy."

Who knows what lies behind anonymous postings to public discussion boards?

by ROB Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:01 pm

Ivan wrote:
What exactly has she [Mrs. Windsor] done for the last 60 years?

She, along with her family (especially the more dysfunctional members thereof), has, for the most part, diverted paparazzi attention away from chiefs of government. Consider the following items of interest.

I believe that there have been three 21st Century UK Prime Ministers, Tony Blair (one of the finest geopoliticists of my cognizant lifetime), Gordon Brown, and David Cameron, two Labour and one Conservative (correct me if I’ve got it wrong).

From this side of the Atlantic Ocean, I know little of the personal lives of these three men (all of whom, I suspect, do have personal lives), and even less of the personal lives of their family members. Shucks, I don’t even know the family members’ names.

As great a Tony Blair fan as I am, my knowledge of this extraordinary geopolitical practitioner is by and large limited to his words and actions on and about the world stage. I can almost recall Mr. Blair’s exact words as he replied to a Ted Koppel question posed during an interview circa 2004 (profound wisdom taught unto all with ears to hear in perhaps twenty words), but I wouldn’t know Mrs. Blair (if there is a Mrs. Blair) if she walked up to me, stared me in the eye from six inches away, and slapped my face. And that, in my opinion, is a good thing.
There have been three 21st Century US Presidents, William Jefferson Clinton (for twenty days, 1 January 2001 through 20 January 2001 at 12 noon Eastern Standard Time), George Walker Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama Jr., two Democrats and one Republican.

From your side of the pond, how much do you know of the personal lives of these three men? How much do you know of their families’ personal lives? I know doggoned well, given the intense paparazzi scrutiny to which these men and their families are subjected, that in many ways you know more about their personal lives than you know about your distant relatives’ personal lives.

Consider another excellent geopoliticist, Barack Obama: Why in God’s name should you (or I) know so damned much about his Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, filed in Honolulu, Hawaii back in 1961? Why should you or I know anything about a car accident suffered by a former president’s wife back in the 1960’s or 1970’s?

I believe Mrs. Windsor and her family have a lot to do with this cross-pond disparity. We don’t have a largely unimportant public figure to divert paparazzi attention from our chief of government and commander-in-chief of our armed forces. Yeah, I know the Queen Elizabeth II is the titular CinC of at least the “Royal” forces, the RN and RAF, but the PM calls the shots.

by trevorw2539 Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:23 pm

Ivan quote.

Mrs W doesn’t express her views in public, but that doesn’t mean she is restrained in private. Keeping her trap shut in public isn’t proof of impartiality. So who can say how ‘impartial’ she is? That’s probably just a fictional notion held together by state secrecy.

As long as she doesn't interfere in state politics surely she is free to say what she likes in private. You at least have the privilege of saying what you like in public, within reason, of course.

I don't know where your hate fixation against the monarchy comes from, but it seems to me to have become a burden to you.

Ivan quote. 'That’s probably just a fictional notion held together by state secrecy'. [color=black]Just as your quote is probably a fictional notion from your mind.
To allow Cuttingedge2 to remain on 'air' I have modified my comments on Ivan's post.

S.... ............ ................ ... ......... . .................. . .......... ......... ........
... ............ .... . ......... . .......... ......!

But then he already knows that Smile

.

by **Ivan** Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:41 pm

Trevor. I've put up with your insults on this topic on previous occasions, but I'm entitled to my views just as much as you're entitled to yours. I don't respect people because of accident of birth, or because they've been born into a position of privilege and opulence, I respect people because of what they've achieved on their own merits. I also believe in democracy, which involves citizens (not subjects) voting for their head of state. It's high time that feudalism was dead and buried. But that's just my opinion.

by ROB Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:08 pm

Ivan,

Two wise sayings:

”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
”You don’t miss your water till your well runs dry.”

If you ever get rid of your royal paparazzi targets, you might one day find yourself saying, “Y’know, things wuznt half bad back in the day.”

Betcha if Michelle Obama spits on a DC sidewalk today (it’s 5:05 Eastern Daylight Time), the Facebook/YouTube video will go viral by 12) Midnight EDT.

Betcha if Mrs. Cameron lights a campfire on a London sidewalk, few will know and few will care.

by **Ivan** Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:32 pm

If you ever get rid of your royal paparazzi targets, you might one day find yourself saying, “Y’know, things wuznt half bad back in the day.”

Rock. That's something I'll never say. It disgusts me that people can revere someone because of accident of birth, not their achievements. It's okay for you, you get to vote for your head of state on the first Tuesday in November every four years, and you can't be lumbered with anyone for longer than eight. When that gormless fool Charles Windsor takes over, we're stuck with him until he drops dead.

If you believe in democracy, as I do, it is broke. Feudalism should have ended years ago, as it did in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland and many other civilised countries, and they don't seem any the worse for it.

by trevorw2539 Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:47 pm

Ivan quote

Trevor. I've put up with your insults on this topic on previous occasions, but I'm entitled to my views just as much as you're entitled to yours.

Well at least you can complain about my 'insults', which is more than the Queen can do about yours.
As it happens I respect the Queen for 60 years of working for the State period

Anyway you don't have to worry. It's been interesting reading and posting on here, but probably time to leave for pastures new before I really do get insulting Sad

.

Good luck.

by oftenwrong Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:27 pm

A matter conveniently overlooked by Republican anti-monarchists is that if the Queen had been required to offer herself for re-election every four years during the past sixty, she would almost certainly have received a popular majority exceeding 60% on every occasion, according to Polls.

In actual fact, 95% of votes cast in all Westminster elections during the same period have been in support of Political Parties that support the Monarchy.

http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=1914

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:15 am

You can't see any irony in quoting opinion polls, when we've never been allowed a real poll?? And if the monarchy had 49% support or less in opinion polls, do you think we would be given a referendum? You bet we wouldn't.

If Mrs Windsor is so popular (and that's before we mention her son and heir), let her stand for UK President and probably win. At least that would give her democratic legitimacy.

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:46 am

"At least that would give her democratic legitimacy."

.... superior to that encountered on public debating fora ....

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:55 am

Not sure that I understand. When I post my views about the monarchy or anything else, I do so as a fellow member of the forum and can be (and have been) subjected to the same moderation as anyone else. Are you saying that you want the forum staff elected?
Question

by jackthelad Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:48 pm

Ivan wrote:You can't see any irony in quoting opinion polls, when we've never been allowed a real poll?? And if the monarchy had 49% support or less in opinion polls, do you think we would be given a referendum? You bet we wouldn't.

If Mrs Windsor is so popular (and that's before we mention her son and heir), let her stand for UK President and probably win. At least that would give her democratic legitimacy.

The Queen is legitimate, there by public consent, you don't need to take a vote on it. All the political parties are in support of the Queen and the majority of their supporters. No one is taking to the streets to demand there removel, no riots, on the contrary, when they are out on the steets it is to greet her.
Republican had there day, remember Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads, didn't last long, they soon brought the Royal family back. They brought Charles the second back from France, and has far as the French are concerned getting rid of their entire royal family, after Robespiere the chief republican, they had a bunch of losers, counting their little Corsican Emperor Napoleon Boneparte.
It appears that Ivan hates the Royal family more than he does the Tories, and we all know how much he hates them. We are definately not a sinking ship, we are an island state surrounded by water, there is no danger of us sinking. Any problems we have are not caused by the Queen but the politicians, and even by any miricle, if we became a republic, we would still get the same problems. Lay the blame where it belongs, with the government and politicions who are in charge at the time. People i might had who are in that position because of the people who voted for them. Has a subject of this great country, citizen in Ivan's case, we are as much to blame for the problem because some of us voted for them. Smile

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:16 pm

I would be amongst the last to admire anyone simply on account of their 'accident of birth'.

My own admiration for the present Queen is based on the way in which she has conducted herself, the loyalty she has to this nation and its institutions, and the stabilising influence she has had by virtue of those and other qualities. If anyone can tell me of a politician who has had the same proportional impact - including upon the view of Britain by other nations - I shall be more than a little amazed.

Whether her successors will warrant the same degree of admiration remains to be seen but, to be sure, they have a very difficult act to follow ...

by **Ivan** Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:11 pm

The way Mrs Windsor has conducted herself is to say nothing apart from a few meaningless platitudes on Christmas Day, wave to us peasants occasionally, shake hands with gloves on (the height of ignorance) and milk the taxpayer. I see that at a time when people are losing their homes and jobs, or at best having a pay freeze, she's accepted another £200 million (while her vile son and heir has pocketed increases of 18% and 12% in the last two years). She could have turned it down. She could also have dipped into her own vast wealth and opened a hostel or two for homeless people not fortunate enough to rattle around in a 775-room palace.

We have a silent head of state, offering nothing but an empty space where an inspiring leader could be. We could have benefited from a non-partisan national leader, speaking for the UK above the political fray on many occasions: after tragedies like Aberfan, Hillsborough, Lockerbie and the 7/7 bombings, or even on the conflict in Northern Ireland. Any fool can sit in a palace and say nothing about anything. If doing nothing is considered such a virtue, I think I'll try it!

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:31 pm

The fly-in-the-ointment of Democracy has always been that the will of the majority prevails.

Unfortunately the automatic corollary of that is that although minority opinions will be heard, that's as far as they go. Like being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.

by ROB Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:52 pm

Ivan, one point of contention and one observation.

Point of contention: It is not the existence of a monarch in your nation that irks me; it is the existence of an official establishment of religion, the Anglican Church, and the existence of a religious test for your nation’s highest office (twenty-one gun salute). We took care of both in our Constitution; there shall be no religious test for any federal or state office, and neither shall Congress nor the legislatures of the several states make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Observation: The fact that our president is elected does not guarantee that our president is inspirational. In my lifetime:

Harry S Truman? Not so much inspirational.
Dwight David Eisenhower? Boring as spit.
John Fitzgerald “Ich bin ein Berliner” Kennedy? Well…
Lyndon Baines Johnson? Occasionally inspirational.
Richard Milhous Nixon? Maybe to organized crime capos.
Gerald Ford? (Snoring sound.)
James Earl Carter? My kind of guy, but about as inspirational as a typical math professor.
Ronald Reagan? Got tom give credit where credit is due: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
George Herbert Walker Bush? Sinister, but certainly not inspirational.
William Jefferson Clinton? “Slick Willie” couldn’t even “inspire” cute women to “hang out” in the Oval Office.
George Walker Bush? Come on.
Barack Hussein Obama? Nuff said.

Three (Kennedy, Reagan, Obama) and a half (Johnson) out of twelve? Not particularly good odds. The electorate does no always choose inspirational leaders.

by Shirina Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:07 pm

there shall be no religious test for any federal or state office

It's too bad that we sometimes ignore the Constitution when religion is involved.

My state of North Carolina along with several other states still have a clause in their constitutions requiring anyone holding a public office to affirm their belief in either "God" or "a higher power." Those refusing to do so are disqualified. Whether this provision is actually enforced, I cannot say. But legally, only the religious are allowed to hold office in those states.

Now, if a belief in a "higher power" means the US Constitution trumping state constitutions, then sure.

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:13 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"][color=black]
Ivan, one point of contention and one observation.

Point of contention: It is not the existence of a monarch in your nation that irks me; it is the existence of an official establishment of religion, the Anglican Church, and the existence of a religious test for your nation’s highest office (twenty-one gun salute). We took care of both in our Constitution; there shall be no religious test for any federal or state office, and neither shall Congress nor the legislatures of the several states make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Observation: The fact that our president is elected does not guarantee that our president is inspirational. In my lifetime. ....
[quote]

We in Britain don't get to vote for or against a monarchy, nor to have any say in the composition of the Established Church. Those are matters of historical fact but the reality is that in the 21st.Century if we were really unhappy about either, it's probable that a change might be effected.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States is such a delicate flower that it may not be challenged by anyone. The way Presidents are elected is so opaque as to resemble an Insurance guarantee document.
What on earth is that "Electoral College" all about if not to confuse the innocent?

As Joe E Brown ends the movie "Some like it hot" after proposing to a girl who confesses to being a man, "Nobody's Perfect".

by ROB Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:02 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Point of contention: It is not the existence of a monarch in your nation that irks me; it is the existence of an official establishment of religion, the Anglican Church, and the existence of a religious test for your nation’s highest office (twenty-one gun salute). We took care of both in our Constitution; there shall be no religious test for any federal or state office, and neither shall Congress nor the legislatures of the several states make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

oftenwrong wrote:
We in Britain don't get to vote for or against a monarchy, nor to have any say in the composition of the Established Church. Those are matters of historical fact but the reality is that in the 21st.Century if we were really unhappy about either, it's probable that a change might be effected.

In the de facto republic of the United Kingdom, the collective “we” is composed of as many individual “I’s” as there are United Kingdom voters. There appears to be at least one United Kingdom voter, one individual “I”, that is unhappy about one, and perhaps the other. Has this individual “I”, this UK voter, as yet had the opportunity to vote upon the continuance of these “matters of historical fact”, the monarchy and the “Establishment Church”, in a nationwide referendum?

Apparently not; otherwise, this individual “I”, this voter in the de facto republic of the United Kingdom, would not be posting as he does hereon. As he points out, even when I, a voter in the Constitutionally-mandated republic of the United States, disapprove of my Chief of State, the rascal must “get by me” at the polls on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of every year divisible by four. Additionally, I am not “saddled” by an “Establishment Church”, the non-existent “Church of America USV”, of which my Chief of State must be a member-in-good-standing prior to taking office 20 January at 12 noon EST every four years.

These are matters of present day fact.

by ROB Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:34 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Whereas the Constitution of the United States is such a delicate flower that it may not be challenged by anyone.

Erroneous.

The Constitution of the United States is not “such a delicate flower that it may not be challenged by anyone”; conversely, the Constitution of the United States may be, and has successfully been, challenged by We the People of the United States, who, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, did and do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Here’s how We the People of the United States have successfully challenged the Constitution of the United States:

United States Constitution, Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

by ROB Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:03 am

oftenwrong wrote:
The way Presidents are elected is so opaque as to resemble an Insurance guarantee document
.

Erroneous.

The manner in which Presidents of the United States are elected is absolutely transparent to anyone possessed of 5th grade level English language proficiency that chooses to access and read the easily accessible and readable pertinent portions of the United States Constitution.

oftenwrong wrote:
What on earth is that "Electoral College" all about if not to confuse the innocent?

The Electoral College, as anyone possessed of 5th grade level English language proficiency that chooses to access and read the easily accessible and readable pertinent portions of the United States Constitution can quickly discover by so accessing and so reading, is “all about” electing Presidents of the United States.

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraphs 2 and 4:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

United States Constitution, Amendment 12:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

United States Constitution, Amendment 23, Paragraph 1:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

by **Ivan** Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:35 am

What on earth is that "Electoral College" all about if not to confuse the innocent?

This is something many of us Brits have a problem with. In a two-horse race, why not just count the votes and the winner is elected? That's exactly what happened in France recently. But no, Al Gore beat George Bush by at least half a million votes in 2000 (and that's without the way Florida's 'hanging chads' helped Bush), yet the Texan serial killer was eventually declared the winner by a Supreme Court packed with judges appointed by his father. Many banana republics would operate a better system.

by ROB Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:44 am

Ivan wrote:
In a two-horse race, why not just count the votes and the winner is elected?¹ But no, Al Gore beat George Bush by at least half a million votes in 2000² (and that's without the way Florida's 'hanging chads' helped Bush), yet the Texan serial killer was eventually declared the winner³ by a Supreme Court…

In each presidential election in my cognizant lifetime (1956, 1950, 1962, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, `980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008), the candidate that, after the votes were counted, received the majority of the votes was declared the winner, as mandated by the United States Constitution, of which pertinent portions thereof are visible in my post on this thread of Friday, 6 July 2012 at 5:03.
There were not “at least half a million votes” cast in the 2000 presidential election. Five hundred thirty-eight votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election, of which George Walker Bush received a majority.
The “Texas serial killer” was not “eventually declared the winner” of the 2000 presidential election. Governor of the Sovereign State of Texas George Walker Bush (1) received the majority of the votes, and (2) was declared the winner, as mandated by the United States Constitution, of which pertinent portions thereof are visible in my post on this thread of Friday, 6 July 2012 at 5:03.

by **astradt1** Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:25 pm

There were not “at least half a million votes” cast in the 2000 presidential election. Five hundred thirty-eight votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election, of which George Walker Bush received a majority.

Selective quoting ..again!!!!

But no, Al Gore beat George Bush by at least half a million votes in 2000

If as you assert RoB Bush won the majority of the 'Five hundred thirty-eight votes' can it be said that the USA has a system of one man one vote....surely it's more a case of a select few holding the power to elect the President......

Not really much of a democracy is it?

by jackthelad Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:54 pm

astradt1 wrote:
There were not “at least half a million votes” cast in the 2000 presidential election. Five hundred thirty-eight votes were cast in the 2000 presidential election, of which George Walker Bush received a majority.

Selective quoting ..again!!!!

But no, Al Gore beat George Bush by at least half a million votes in 2000

If as you assert RoB Bush won the majority of the 'Five hundred thirty-eight votes' can it be said that the USA has a system of one man one vote....surely it's more a case of a select few holding the power to elect the President......

Not really much of a democracy is it?

I must admit i do not understand the American system of voting, we get to vote for our member of parliament, on the first past the post system, the party with the highest number of MP's form a government. We don't have a say who the Prime Minister should be, that is left to the party MP's and members of that party.
Now America does not seem to have a peoples vote for President, each state has a number of votes, some states have more votes than other states, (i think), they cast their votes to the person they want to win. Seems a bit complicated to me, why not have a national vote, if there are 200 million people elegible to vote for their president, let them vote, the man/woman who gets the majority of votes is elected president. It seems logical to me, the people get the man/woman for President that is most popular.

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:40 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

oftenwrong wrote:
The way Presidents are elected is so opaque as to resemble an Insurance guarantee document
.

Erroneous.

The manner in which Presidents of the United States are elected is absolutely transparent to anyone possessed of 5th grade level English language proficiency that chooses to access and read the easily accessible and readable pertinent portions of the United States Constitution.

oftenwrong wrote:
What on earth is that "Electoral College" all about if not to confuse the innocent?

The Electoral College, as anyone possessed of 5th grade level English language proficiency that chooses to access and read the easily accessible and readable pertinent portions of the United States Constitution can quickly discover by so accessing and so reading, is “all about” electing Presidents of the United States.

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraphs 2 and 4:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

So what is the reason for replacing "One Man, One vote" with Appointed Electors, RoB?

Just askin'

by Shirina Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:50 pm

So what is the reason for replacing "One Man, One vote" with Appointed Electors, RoB?

In 1787, the Founding Fathers, based on their direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy.

The Founders were unanimous in their desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

As a part of their plan to separate powers and authority, the Founders created the Electoral College as method by which the people could choose their highest government leader - the president -- while avoiding at least some of the dangers of a direct election.

LINK

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:27 pm

So the actual people inhabiting the USA ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH ELECTING THEIR OWN PRESIDENT. Have I read that correctly?

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:16 am

oftenwrong wrote:
So what is the reason for replacing "One Man, One vote" with Appointed Electors, RoB?

In the United States of America, “One Man, One Vote” has not been replaced with “Appointed Electors”, OW.

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:58 am

jackthelad wrote:
I must admit i do not understand the American system of voting, we get to vote for our member of parliament, on the first past the post system, the party with the highest number of MP's form a government. We don't have a say who the Prime Minister should be, that is left to the party MP's and members of that party.

Jack,

That’s the Westminster system, the system after which many legitimate democracies are modeled.

jackthelad wrote:
Now America does not seem to have a peoples vote for President…

Actually, we do. See a somewhat detailed description below.

jackthelad wrote:
… each state has a number of votes, some states have more votes than other states, (i think)…

You think correctly. There are five hundred thirty-eight presidential electors (actual people) “selected” by voters in the fifty sovereign states and the District of Columbia in fifty-one simultaneous elections held every four years.

Here’s how it works. Each state is allocated a certain number of United States Representatives (commonly called “congressmen / congresswomen / congresspersons) based upon population. The least populous states, such as Wyoming, are allocated one representative each, while the most populous state, California, is allocated fifty-three representatives. Each state is also allocated two United States Senators, regardless of population, so Wyoming and California are each allocated two senators.

Each state’s number of electors is equal to its number of representatives plus its number of senators; accordingly, Wyoming has three electors (one representative plus two senators) and California has fifty five electors (fifty-three representatives plus two senators).

There are four hundred thirty-five United Stets Representatives and one hundred United States Senators, so that accounts for five hundred thirty-five of the five hundred thirty eight electors, the remaining electors coming from the District of Columbia, which in presidential elections is allocated the same number of electors, thee, as the lest populous states.

jackthelad wrote:
… they cast their votes to the person they want to win.

Exactly.

Here’s how that works. Electors are themselves elected by the voters of each state, based upon the presidential candidate to which they’ve pledged their votes. For instance, in the 2008 presidential election, a slate of fifty-five potential electors pledged to vote for Barack Obama stood for election, a slate of fifty-five potential electors pledged to vote for John McCain stood for election, and slates of fifty-five potential electors pledged to vote for every other candidate on the ballot stood for election.

In California, the slate of Obama electors obtained the majority vote; thus, we said that Obama “took” California and garnered fifty-five electoral votes in the Electoral College. Meanwhile, McCain “took” Texas and its thirty four electoral votes in the same fashion; the slate of McCain electors obtained the majority vote.

We the People of the fifty sovereign states and the District of Columbia voted in fifty-one separate simultaneous presidential elections on 4 November 2008. In each election, there was a “winner”; i.e., a slate of electors pledged to vote for a specific candidate obtained the majority vote. In California, Barack Obama was the winner; in Texas, John McCain was the winner.

The linked Wikipedia article has two maps directly to the top right, the lower of which can help you to visualize those fifty-one separate simultaneous 2008 elections.

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

jackthelad wrote:
Seems a bit complicated to me…

It is.

jackthelad wrote:
… why not have a national vote…

Excellent question, the response to which often divides households. One side argues as you argue, that the person with the most overall popular vote should be elected.

I argue for and with the other side for four reasons. One, most often, the person who garners the majority of the Electoral College votes also wins a majority of the overall popular vote. Two, the minimum three electoral votes per state enhances the voting power of citizens of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, and Alaska (Did I get ‘em all?), whose percentage vote is already miniscule but would be drastically diminished if we went to a direct popular vote. Three, the 1960 lection, in which no candidate won a majority of the popular vote, but one, John F. Kennedy, won a majority of the electoral votes. Haven’t y’all had about enough of a coalition government? Four, each of the several states is a sovereign state, and the Electoral College tends to reinforce this oft-attacked sovereignty.

But, as I said, this issue divides households, and I’ve some very close love ones who routinely argue me down on this question.

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:59 am

One word springs to mind upon reading such explanations.

Obfuscation.

by jackthelad Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:One word springs to mind upon reading such explanations.

Obfuscation.

Obfuscation, not a word i have heard of before, had to look it up, it just shows that you are never too old to learn. Now i know, Obscure, Confuse, Blur, Muddle, Complicate, anyone of those i know, it's better to use more memorable words than ones that can confuse an old man. But i do get your point oftenwrong, i still think one person one vote, the majority rules, people don't seem to like simple, so go out of their way to confuse the issue.

by astra Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:40 pm

To be perfectly honest, I have lost intrest in the American System.

Be sure, that the UK gets the American AND UK leader we deserve!

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:11 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
One word springs to mind upon reading such explanations.

Obfuscation.

Several words spring to mind upon my reading explanations of the Electoral College. “Obfuscation” is not one of those words.

jackthelad wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:
One word springs to mind upon reading such explanations.

Obfuscation.
Obfuscation, not a word i have heard of before, had to look it up, it just shows that you are never too old to learn. Now i know, Obscure, Confuse, Blur, Muddle, Complicate, anyone of those…

Jack,

The Electoral College is neither obscure, nor confusing (once one has invested enough time to learn), nor blurred, nor muddled. In fact, compared to the British manifestation of the Westminster system, complete with a privy council and a House of Lords, each of which seem to possess some governmental power not fully understood from over here, the Electoral College is pretty straightforward. Every four years, voters in all sovereign states and the District of Columbia, voting in fifty-one separate simultaneous presidential elections held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of every year divisible by four, elect fifty-one slates of electors, the number of which in each state (in 2008, three through fifty-five) is roughly tied to the state’s population, and the number of which in the District of Columbia is three. These electors, five hundred thirty-eight total, comprise the Electoral College, which directly elects the President of the United States by majority vote.

The Electoral College is complicated. In my view, its complication is due to its complicated multiple goals. Its first historic goal was to help bind thirteen sovereign states, recently independent after surviving a grueling War of Independence against the assembled forces of the world’s greatest military power (we didn’t “win”; we just barely hung on), were in no mood to give up their hard earned individual sovereignty. The Articles of Confederation, under which the thirteen sovereign states were mis-governed as a collective for ten plus years, was worth in fact maybe a bit more than the paper on which it was written. The Electoral College system was designed as a key component of the “glue” which the Founding Fathers hoped and prayed would keep the thirteen sovereign states “stuck” to one another.

Did the glue hold tight? Fast forward to 1860 and see. If my memory is accurate, the American Civil War remains the bloodiest war in our history.

Even with its complicates structure, the Electoral College is far less complicated than your “peerage” stuff, with lords and ladies and counts and viscounts and Lord know what else affixed to the front ends of folks’ names, and all sorts of initials affixed to the back ends of folks’ names, in such a mumble jumble of hierarchies that I would never invite those folks to my state for a sit-own bar b q dinner, I gaw-run-tee!

jackthelad wrote:
… i still think one person one vote…

The Electoral College accomplished this at two levels. In the fifty-one state (and D.C.) elections, it’s one man one vote, the “winner’s” slate elected by majority vote. In the Electoral College, it’s one man one vote, the winner elected by majority vote.

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:27 pm

astra wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I have lost intrest in the American System.

Be sure, that the UK gets the American AND UK leader we deserve!

You have no need to maintain interest in the American USV system. No matter who we elect president, and no matter how we do so, the person elected will, as Commander in Chief, respond to a call for help from the United Kingdom if the rascal wants to be re-elected.

Also, as a matter if scholarly observation, the histories of our nations are far different. Scotland and Wales are conquered countries; Scots and Welsh are conquered peoples. We have no similar situation here.

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:21 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

by astra Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:50 pm

Just for fun, you say Scots are a conquered people! Evil or Very Mad

It was James the Sixth of Scotland who sallied 400 miles south on the death of Black Bess to become James the First of England,, thus occupying BOTH crowns!

It were Ingirlyland what were taken over!! Twisted Evil

Further, I would think that the Native Americans are a conquered people/nation Whoops, sorry OW just now read your link Embarassed

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:58 pm

Astra,

Native Americans were first conquered by Europeans, including the British. Our forefather’s just carried on the tradition passed on from Jolly Ole England; if they ain’t white, subjugate ‘em.

Indians (real ones, from India), Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Ceylonese? Ain’t white, so subjugate ‘em. Yoruba, Ibo, Ibibio, Hausa, and the remainder of the approximately 200 nations whose territories were sucked up into Nigeria? Ain’t white, so subjugate ‘em. Australian Aborigines? Ain’t white, so subjugate ‘em, and while yer at it, rename their sacred rock and trample up and own its sides in gross disrespect. Maoris? Ain’t white, so attempt to subjugate ‘em (with limited success; Maoris are some bad boys).

I am part Cherokee: although very much out of the cultural loop thereof, my direct ancestor survived the Trail of Tears upon which her people were placed by Andrew Jackson (whose “cultural bloodline” was definitely English), so I say this with eyes wide open. I am part West African, with ancestors unknown to me (slaves’ genealogies were seldom recorded) that survived the Middle Passage, o I say this with eyes wide open. I am part Irish it is my understanding that my honorable Irish ancestors descended from poor Irish who departed Ireland during the mid-19th Century Potato famine, during which time landed English lords stocked their larders while Irish farmers and their families died of starvation, so I say this with eyes wide open.

As for Scots being a conquered people, yew they are. The English were good at that. Please remember that your fellow Celts, the Irish, the line from which I draw my Celt DNA, were also a conquered people, conquered by the same conquerors, so I say this with my eyes wide open.

All that being said, since I tend to pull for my distant kinfolk, it does my heart good to finally be taught that James the Sixth of Scotland (James the First of England) took over Ingirlyland! As we would say over here, “Go ‘head on with your bad self, James!”

And oh yeah, Sean Connery is cool. As a matter of fact, along with Sidney the Poitier and Jerry the Butler, Sean the Connery is in the top three coolest men alive! The movie Rising Sun: “Perhaps I can be of assistance?” Uh, huh!

by jackthelad Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:28 pm

Rock,

I don't doubt a word of what you have said, like the Ancient Roman Empire, the British Empire was run by a lot of arrogant buggers also, that thought the world belong to them. It must be a European trait, or even an Asian one, from Ghengis Khan to Alexander the Great, i will not dispute your argument about the American indian in the first instant, when Europeans landed on those far distant shores, but we can only be blamed for the first thirteen states. The subjugation of the rest of the Indian tribes was the white Americans fault, not the Europeans, unless you still class yourselves as Europeans.
The South is a conquered country, conquered by the North, in the American civil war, i believe at that time the South had there own President and army under General Robert. E. Lee. I ain't whistling Dixie either, i disagree with your part of the argument on that. Very Happy

by Sponsored content