Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on September 09, 2005, 12:45:38 pm
-
No "You lost, get over it" bull****. This is a serious threat to american democracy and to simply dismiss it because your party won is myoptism as best - fascism in most cases.
http://www.harpers.org.nyud.net:8090/ExcerptNoneDare.html
And when, on March 31, the National Election Data Archive Project released its study demonstrating that the exit polls had probably been right, it made news only in the Akron Beacon-Journal.[9] The article included this response from Carlo LoParo, Kenneth Blackwell’s spokesman: “What are you going to do except laugh at it?”
In the summer of 2003, Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) was interviewed by Alexandra Pelosi at a barbecue on the White House lawn for her HBO documentary Diary of a Political Tourist. “It’s already over. The election’s over. We won,” King exulted more than a year before the election. When asked by Pelosi—the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—how he knew that Bush would win, he answered, “It’s all over but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting.”
-
the republican party can't do anything secret anymore can they. they must have lost their touch after nixon left office.
-
This isn't a "get over it message" but I'm curious.. what can you do about it?
-
The whole election process in the US is screwed up. You can say whatever you want about Brazil - underdeveloped, corrupt politicians, etc., but our election process works. Our voting machines are simple, cheap and reliable (and allow voting for the blind, unlike some of the US ballots), lines on voting places are relatively rare, every party can have a supervisor on both the voting and counting spots, the staff for the polling places is chosen randomly from the pool of registered voters, and the voting results are usually made available on the same day of the voting, even on presidential elections. Damn, we have teams with "roaming" polling places going from village to village in the Amazon, and it works.
After the whole fiasco of the previous (2000?) election our government offered to sell the voting machines and counting system to the US, an offer that was immediately refused, of course.
-
How do your machines work?
-
They have a circus midget named Paco inside them who takes all the votes, eats them then scribbles a random response on a slip of paper at the end of the night.
-
At least it's more honest than the Diebold machines ;)
-
Har har. I actually wrote quite a lengthy post about it when I was at the lab, but the connection seemed to hit a snag and I couldn't post.
Basically, they're small self-contained computers with a greyscale LCD, a simple speaker and large keys with braille markings. Each polling table has one, connected to a small keypad where the chairman of the table types in the voter ID (well, it's a special document for voting, really, everyone must have one). Once the Id is typed in, the voting starts for that person - the machine will display the current vote (president, governor, senator, etc.) and the voter will type in the candidate number (all parties have a fixed number which doesn't change between elections, and all candidates have a number which starts with the party number - governor and president candidate numbers are simply the party numbers). Once the number is typed, the machine plays a distinct sound (of many), shows a photo of the candidate (only for president, governor and senator, I think - not completely sure, though), and asks for the voter to confirm or cancel the vote. If he confirms, it plays a sound and proceeds to the next vote on the list, if not, the voter can type another number. There's a special key to vote null, and a key to skip a vote (same as an unmarked ballot). Once all the votes are finished, another sound is played, the LCD shows "END" (in portuguese :p), and it's over. The chairman then types the Id of the next person in line.
A few days before each election they put the machines with bogus candidates for the voters to practice, and this training is encouraged through ad campaigns on TV, radio, newspapers, etc. There are hardly any lines on the polling spots (I never stood more than five minutes in line), and the machines rarely break, even if dropped on the floor. Counting is done digitally - the machine prints the results (for conference by the party auditors) and records the results on a disk (encrypted, of course) which is read by a counting computer. Counting is over in the same day, even for presidential elections. Party auditors can monitor the whole process, from the voting tables, to the disk transference, to the actual counting, and they usually do, so there isn't much room for tampering. The machines themselves are sealed, and can be audited by party-appointed technicians. The staff for the polling tables is picked at random from the pool of voters (several friends of mine with no party connections and no interest in politics whatsoever were picked already, so it's pretty clear that it's actually random) - polling duty is mandatory, and if you're picked and refuse without a very good excuse you can go to jail.
Here's a picture of one of the voting machines:
(http://www.unisys.com.br/img/urna01.jpg)
And this is a simulator (in Java) from the official Supreme Electoral Court website:
http://www.tse.gov.br/eleicoes/urna_eletronica/simulacao_votacao/UrnaApplet2.htm
-
Kazan, you're always good for a laugh. Don't go changing. :p
/wonders how badly Kazan will respond to this post...
That's an interesting system, Styxx, and I'll agree that it sounds a lot more organized than what we manage here. In the US, every county of every state pretty much chooses which method they will use. We've got everything ranging from old-fashioned paper write-in ballots to standardized-testing-esque fill-in-the-bubbles to the infamous punch-out ballots to touch-screen electronic systems to (what my own county uses) lever-style machines that require you to flip a bunch of switches and pull a big lever when you're done. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, while you might immediately think that the voting machines that my county uses are inferior to the electronic systems of the neighboring county, one of the advantages of the mechanical systems is that physical tumblers keep track of the vote counts. The electronic systems around here, at least, don't have any sort of mechanical or paper trail and are thus far more prone to tampering possibilities. Even worse than having a bunch of different systems is the problem of voter apathy; our federal elections usually generate not much more than 50% turnout, and more local elections get far less. Still, even with all its flaws, we've managed to elect candidates for over 200 years. Granted, the infamous case in 2000 made international headlines, but for the most part, most of the country manages to make things work year after year.
-
Your party lost....get over it.
There are always people on the losing side who cry "nuts and bolts, we got screwed". But really Kazan....do you think that the republican party is so all powerful that they can bury things like this? Are you that paranoid about conspiracy theories? You are much much smarter than that Kazan, please don't let your temper get the best of you and cloud your judgement, or feed it,
whichever may be the case.
I guess, when it comes to freespace, or really....any kind of programming, you are someone whose abilities i wish i had a tenth of. But if you find something that feeds your opinion about something, you tend to present your opinion as fact. Sorry if you take offense, but that's my opinion on the matter.
Please Kazan, it's one article, that doesn't make it true, or buried through conspiracy. Don't let your intelligence in these matters be clouded by something that feeds your opinion.
Most people will confuse want with need, somehow what they want translates into what they need. Not you though. You are always one to say "this is what i need" and "this is what i want" in your programming, and you are very effective at separating the two there, can you do it in belief matters which there is no right or wrong answer, but simply a matter of opinion?
Not trying to slam you bud, but that's just how i see things.
-
ShadowWolf put it... quite well, in fact.
-
Just to make it clear, I have no opinion on the possibility of fraud. I just bugged in because I see the whole american voting system as a total mess organization-wide, and because of that it seems to be a lot more prone to errors and tampering than the standardized and proven system we have here.
-
principal problem is we were origonaly suposed to be a confederation, and a lot of our foundations are built for that, origonaly the federal government was suposed to only manage interstate disputes and foregn affairs, as a result a lot of things are set up so that states have a lot more say than you would think given how the government works currently, voteing laws fall under this.
-
Kennedy's win against Nixon was a great threat against democracy, for the record.
-
All those dead people voting on both sides, though primarily on Kennedy's side. Let's face it: You wouldn't really want to turn your back on either Nixon or Kennedy.
-
Next US election should be run by Elections Canada. Infact, the entire voting system should be overhauled by Elections Canada. Then you guys would have real democracy.
:)
Its actually very straightforward here and we usually have results within a few hours of the polls closing.
-
If you can convince them, go right ahead.
-
More federal control in federal elections might be a good idea, although most of the state governments probably wouldn't like it too much. A standardized voting system would be a big improvement, but transferring over to one presents problems well beyond the issue of federal control. As I said above, pretty much every county of every state has been left to do things their own way, and so we've got several general voting systems, with dozens of variations on each. If you try converting them to one standard, who's going to pay for that? Remember, we're not talking about a small country with only a million or so registered voters. There were about 142 million registered voters in the US at the time of the 2004 election; getting all of those voters onto a standardized system would cost billions. Who's going to fit the bill: the feds, the states, or the taxpayers? I'm not saying that it can't, or shouldn't, be done, but it's something that would require a lot of planning.
-
No matter what, it comes back to the taxpayers to pay for it.
-
ShadowWolf you are so predictably a partisan hack it's laughable. :rolleyes:
You didn't even read the article I cited in it's entirely for you to make those claims. That article wasn't an opinion piece - those are factual infractions it cited as producted by multiple independant investigations including the particular senate investigation.
Deny it all you want ShadowWolf - Election fraud did happen.
To deny it is to be myoptic at best - more likely it is fascist.
I'm placing you in the second catagory - you're like one of the poor excuses for people who simply follow The Party propaganda in 1984
-------------------------------------------------
Ulala make strict certification standards for electronic voting machines including
- Non-shared strong encryption keyed intermachine communication
- non-rewritable EEPROM contains software - software is certified by a panel of non-partisan security experts from universities (such as CMU) - software can only be upgraded in all machines simultaneously with only new approved versions: version A will not communicate with version B
- Voter-vertified paper audit simultaneously printed with filing of vote
Several other technical features - get voting machines that fit the criterea and force EVERY PRECINT IN THE UNITED STATES to use them
From the legal side
- STRICTLY enforce election laws for random-sampling of precints to detect irregularities
- Raise penalties for election tampering
- Bring charges up against individuals (such as Blackwell) who have been shown to have knowingly caused election irregularities
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Har har. I actually wrote quite a lengthy post about it when I was at the lab, but the connection seemed to hit a snag and I couldn't post.
Our system is very low tech. We don't bother with the circus midget and just re-elect the Liberals. :D
I don't know if we use any voting machines in Canada. I've always voted on paper ballots that get put into cardboard boxes. Very state of the art. :)
-
Screw all elections I say, they only lead to trouble and moronic officials gaining the ability to get into Power through simply power, not ability...not speaking of anyone in particular...
...Seriously, rather than have elections, just stick the candidates inside a big arena with weapons covering the walls (anyone who's read 'Red Dwarf' will know the kind of thing i'm talking about) and have them all fight to the death. Hell, we could elect all politicians this way, as it'll lead to far, far less politicians...which I think will just be for the betterance of Society as a whole...
...And for those argueing that the election(s) within the US were not legitimate, think about it; lately, nobody assosciates the words "United States" & "Election" with "Legitamate" anymore, if you still are, get with the times...
-
FTR, I'm a moderately right-wing conservative, but I don't have any love for the Republicans whatsoever, and I would've been quite indifferent to see Bush go last year.
But look at these studies and reports investigating corruption and fraud which resulted in a count favourable to the GOP. They do not even consider that the same thing could have been happening under Democrat auspices. There was plenty of dodgy crap going on during the 90s just like there is now under Bush, and I'm not inclined to believe that either of the parties is less corrupt than the other. What makes for a more interesting study, "Democrats rigged votes but still lost" or "Republicans swayed election by elecoral fraud"? If anyone looked into it from the other perspective I'll bet it was happening at some magnitude.
-
Then both sides should be punished surely? Not just having the matter swept under the carpet on the suspicion that the democrats did it too.
-
Of course, I wasn't implying otherwise, but like I said, all these investigations have been squarely focused on the Republican side without regard for the possibility that it could've been happening under the Democrats' too, and outside of Florida.
-
The investigations have been carried out by democrats looking for proof that something was going on. Yes that means that there is a bias but why the f**k isn't this investigation now being handled by an impartial agency in the first place?
-
It is the states right and responcibility to run elections, kara, they cannot be forced to do anything in any particular way. The constitution does however grant equal protection under the law which can be applied to the states and to voting procedures.
-
Within the context of it being the states right to run elections, is there a requirement for states to employ a veriably neutral 3rd party to run elections? Or is it left to the incumbent to organize it as they see fit?
Because the latter would strike me as being wide open for abuse.
Mind you, I view the entire US democratic system as pretty corrupt, given the number of special interest groups and lobbyists seeking to influence both the result and the actions of the elected politicians. A consequence of such a large country, perhaps (more money to go round, more needed for campaigning), but not something I like to see happening in the UK (as it would seem to be, sadly).
-
Which is why the export of US style government has led to many nations crumbling into chaos or dictatorship.
Parliaments FTW! :)
-
Facist? This from a man who will only accept as valid anything which proves his opinion, and calls lie to anything which stands against it.
Kazan i am so much more open minded than you are that it isn't funny, i can say that because i am willing to accept another person's point of view and give it due consideration. You on the other hand are willing to accept only those items which further your own opinions.
I remember the first words you ever said to me....and now i give them back to you.....Blow me.
-
redmenace the states can be forced to do things in a particular way if their state-run election systems are found to be insufficiently trustworthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: to the "democrats may have done it to"
Yes they may have done it, and had they have done it I would be proposing the same changes. These changes I briefly touched on would block any party from tampering with the elections. Each state should have to have a panel of multiple officials with equal numbers from all the major parties running their elections: not single partisan officials.
Now - there was no evidence of any election fraud in the 1990s on an appreciable scale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ShadowWolf you Think you're much more open minded than me because you assume that I form my opinion then look for evidence to support it. Probably becuase at some point in the past you did exactly what you are accusing me of and I rejected your pathetic excuse for evidence on one of the following grounds:
* It wasn't actually evidence (ie your argument was non sequitur
* The study/report you cited was falsified and later proven to be falsified
* Your entire argument rested upon logical fallacies
You couldn't be more wrong.
I refine my opinion to the evidence - not my evidence to the opinion.
Come up with counter evidence to the evidence put forward in the article. Try and refute the expert opinions of numerous computer scientists on the computer security of the Diebold E-Voting Equipment- Refute the sworn testimoney of a computer scientist before the Senate on how he was contracted to write a hack for E-Voting machines that would allow the election to be manipulated without notice (he presumed it was so they could learn to detect such hacks.. until he finished the code then the republican house rep who hired him told them it was going to be used).
-
Now for an attempt at reconcilation.
Kazan, you have, in the past, been shown to blow things out of proportion, and also a distinct tendency for beating dead horses.
Shadowwolf, I seem to remember an incident where you overreacted. Let's attempt to avoid an all-out flame war, OK?
-
Grey Wolf: i wouldn't say blow things out of proportion but rather take things more seriously than some in the case of the particular subjects in question.
but aye shadowwolf is just flamebaiting.
-
You don't remember your whole giant crusade on circumcision, Kazan?
-
Could you all just shut up about politics? For once?
Seriously, I love debates and all that jazz, but it's just getting to be too much.
-
Flamebaiting? I paid you several compliments and got called a fascist for my troubles. My opnion differs from your, therefore it is not worth thinking about, had you thought about what i was saying to you, you would have realized that it wasn't about the article at all, but about you, and where you choose to apply your strengths, but more importantly, where you choose to ignore them.
Research the SCP and find our first conversation, then you may see where i am coming from. By the way.....i like spaghetti....i'll bet you can now find a logical arguement not to eat spaghetti.
so while we sit here and debate the merits of flaming, i think that in the end one thing remains prevalent. While it isn't your abilities that are in question, it is instead your maturity level. Now i am done with this. have your rebuttle and say no more, because i won't.
Greywolf.....everyone overreacts from time to time....i know that i have, and i am sure that you have as well.
-
you went on like a typical partisan hack about how "your party lost... get over it" -- just because you peppered some off-topic compliment in doesn't cancel out the fact that you were making a markedly partisan hackish argument that helps fascism grow in america.
the entire spagetti thing is a false analogy.
-
Please prove we admins wrong and don't let this descend into stupidity the way political threads have before. If it keeps happening we'll just lock them as they're posted and save ourselves the time.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
Flamebaiting? I paid you several compliments and got called a fascist for my troubles. My opnion differs from your, therefore it is not worth thinking about, had you thought about what i was saying to you, you would have realized that it wasn't about the article at all, but about you, and where you choose to apply your strengths, but more importantly, where you choose to ignore them.
Research the SCP and find our first conversation, then you may see where i am coming from. By the way.....i like spaghetti....i'll bet you can now find a logical arguement not to eat spaghetti.
so while we sit here and debate the merits of flaming, i think that in the end one thing remains prevalent. While it isn't your abilities that are in question, it is instead your maturity level. Now i am done with this. have your rebuttle and say no more, because i won't.
Greywolf.....everyone overreacts from time to time....i know that i have, and i am sure that you have as well.
No offense intended. I just seemed to remember that it also involved an argument with Kazan, and it got a bit messy.
-
Grey wolf, i think i know what you are talking about.....and that one didn't have anything to do with Kazan.....
Although considering how many times he and i have butt heads, it is understandable.
And Kazan...Nice rebuttle...but i said i would leave it with your rebuttle. Cool?
-
kalfireth: putting a certain person on ignore will help
/me does so
-
I dopn't know why he would put you on ignore Kal....:lol:
-
our party lost... get over it
...realy, look at it, we are out numbered, there is a majority in this countery who just love God and country to the point of ignoring reality. if there was any merit to this, don't you think Kerry would have fought? running around screaming and laying accusations after, this isn't going to do anything other than play right into the republicans hands, they WANT you to spred this, they WANT you to keep bringing up the election fraud, they WANT fodder that they can spin into "the democrats are anti-american". STOP I know you don't like it, I know you can't stand backing down when you think you are right, but this isn't like most arguments, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, only if a majority of people beleive you, and this is tacticaly unsound.
-
Bob...well spoken...and for the record...I am NOT a George Bush fan. However...i did find him to be the lesser of the two evils. Kerry scared me into voting Bush.
-
:rolleyes:
Interesting. Why not vote 3rd party when the top 2 are ****e? that's what i did......
Oh, and you can't ignore admins/moderators BTW.
-
lol aldo...he meant..Ignore ShadowWolf_IH
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
lol aldo...he meant..Ignore ShadowWolf_IH
You're a moderator on the Fs subsection, aren't you? Should you should be ignorable.
(EDIT; I left that sentence in because I have absolutely no idea what it means, or what I meant it to say (the opposite, I think). The complete bizarreness of it is funny, though.....
Oh, and you can't be ignored. Just checked)
-
bobboau: i'm not going to back down off this subject ever - our election system is wide open to abuse by any party and it needs to be fixed
[edit]
aldo: nope it prevent me from ignoring him
-
Kazan, the Federal Gov't should and is obligated to enforce the constitution and the laws it passes. But to flat out require the states to conduct elections in a certain way defeats the purpose of a states rights and the powers they posses.
-
Ignoring people isn't something I'm about to do. We admins are here to regulate things if they get out of hand - and I'm not going to adopt an "out of sight, out of mind" policy to anyone here. If anyone is so much of an idiot that I want to ignore them, I'm going to ban them instead :)
-
if you have the most perfict, logicaly flawles argument, what good will it do you if you can't deliver it without alienateing the people who need to be convinced.
-
kal i was talking about me ignoring shadow
redmance: the states don't have a right to have ****ed up election systems.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Kazan, the Federal Gov't should and is obligated to enforce the constitution and the laws it passes. But to flat out require the states to conduct elections in a certain way defeats the purpose of a states rights and the powers they posses.
But to require they do it in a proveable fair way surely is allowed, if not required?
Oh, and Bobs right; you can have the best facts in the world, but they become useless in an arguement unless you can convey in a way that people a) will listen to you and b) will trust you to deliver facts. If you go nuts on them, they'll be inclined to either ignore you, or assume you're cherrypicking evidence. i.e. tis best to calm yer shams rather than get intae the argy bargy.
-
aldo: i think citing an article of hard evidence and saying "no partisanness" should be enough for most people to take a look at something.
some people will always assume you're lying just because the evidence implicates their party in a particular case
-
At the center of the issue is whether the states are under direct authority of the Federal Gov't. In a couple of words yes and no. The federal Gov't is responcible for enforcing the constitution and to enact laws within its jurisdiction. If the federal gov't were to require the states to do anything, there would have to be a constitutional issue such as the 14th admendment, equal protection under the law like Bush vs. Gore(we'll assume for the sake of argument that it was unpartisan legal decision). But to ensure that every state uses a form of electronic voting isn't justifiable. Additionally, I should point out voting is carried out often by individual counties under the rules and regulations of the state. Each state then sends delegates to the electoral college. So frankly, is it the states responcibility to ensure their elections are fair. Now I don't support corruption, and so I think it is the voters responcibility to vote corrupt individuals out of office. And frankly I see real danger in breaking the seperation of powers between the states and the federal gov't.
-
If you're using partisan language yourself, it casts doubt on your choice of sources, though.
A quote like
[q]
To deny it is to be myoptic at best - more likely it is fascist.
I'm placing you in the second catagory - you're like one of the poor excuses for people who simply follow The Party propaganda in 1984[/q]
Not only destroys any respect any 'opposition' has for your view, it means they are less likely to respect the sources you bring. It also contradicts saying 'no partisanness', becuase the response is partisan. Is there a similar refutory article around? We can't tell, because we can no longer be sure you've looked for one.
You can see my point, I presume. You don't convince people by insulting them, because you need their time and trust for them to consider what you're saying.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
At the center of the issue is whether the states are under direct authority of the Federal Gov't. In a couple of words yes and no. The federal Gov't is responcible for enforcing the constitution and to enact laws within its jurisdiction. If the federal gov't were to require the states to do anything, there would have to be a constitutional issue such as the 14th admendment, equal protection under the law like Bush vs. Gore(we'll assume for the sake of argument that it was unpartisan legal decision). But to ensure that every state uses a form of electronic voting isn't justifiable. Additionally, I should point out voting is carried out often by individual counties under the rules and regulations of the state. Each state then sends delegates to the electoral college. So frankly, is it the states responcibility to ensure their elections are fair. Now I don't support corruption, and so I think it is the voters responcibility to vote corrupt individuals out of office. And frankly I see real danger in breaking the seperation of powers between the states and the federal gov't.
Who ensures fairness, though? The state has a vested interest - for many reasons - in appearing to be fair, so where is the oversight from? Obviously the Supreme Court (albeit itself a highly political institution IMO) can rule on complaints, but what institutions are responsible for detecting fraud and making said complaints?
One other thing that struck me; if each state can decide differently how its electoral college delegates are 'allocated' (i.e. proportionate to vote, or simply all for the one majority vote candidate), doesn't that destroy equal/fair representation for the individuals between states?
Oh, and what's all this pullaver over federal and state government? I can understand a fear of dictatorship if central government has too much power (stemming, I guess, from the pre-rebellion time under British control), but doesn't it also indicate a complete lack of faith in central government? I've heard the US system of governing as (paraphrase) 'balanced chaos', and to be honest I can see the reason why.
-
I'll argue that in all honesty the US doesn't know what it wants.
The same folks who argue against the federal government having too much power are the same ones who openly admit to wanting to elect "strong presidents"/fatherly figures to run the federal government. (as opposed to a candidate that may have personal flaws but is closer ideal wise to what they want, "a strong leader is needed for a strong nation!!111 I'd rather have that than a soccer mom/dad!")
Such individuals by their very nature will increase the federal government's power, (look at every "important" president in the 20th century) the exact opposite of what they claim they want.
Personally I don't even pretend to believe in states rights. Nice concept, but it failed during a little, utterly unimportant, thing called the CIVIL WAR. Since then the US, face it, is a federalist state.
Even prohibition was fortunately a success in its failure because the "state's rights" version of the law was the worst of both worlds. (organized crime in the prohibition states dealing with legitimate business in regular states) Good 'ol Volstead and his fundie allies allowed for such an extreme situation where the criminal violence of prohibition was revealed and the act was repealed.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and what's all this pullaver over federal and state government? I can understand a fear of dictatorship if central government has too much power (stemming, I guess, from the pre-rebellion time under British control), but doesn't it also indicate a complete lack of faith in central government? I've heard the US system of governing as (paraphrase) 'balanced chaos', and to be honest I can see the reason why.
aldo, the debate over state vs. federal power has been going on since before the Constitution was written, and in many respects, it's been the most historically influential element of our political system. After the American Revolution, colonial leaders worried about the possibility of a strong, centralized government taking control, since that was largely what they had fought against King George to escape from. As a result, they drafted the Articles of Confederation, which established a very loose federation of independent states. The states could go so far as to issue their own separate currencies, and the national congress had little to no power to enforce the laws it passed. After a series of disputes between states, many of the most influential leaders realized that something had to be done. Congress called for a national convention with the stated purpose of "revising" the Articles of Confederation to fix their problems. After a short time, however, the Framers realized that an entirely new system of government had to be established, and the Constitution began to take shape. Throughout the course of the convention, many of the most heavily debated issues involved the balance of power between state and federal governments. These are also incorporated into parts of the Bill of Rights.
Since then, the debate has continued; one of the most notable developments was, indeed, the Civil War, which was started as a challenge over a state's supposed right to secede from the Union; this war led the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has used to "incorporate" certain elements of the Bill of Rights and hold them against the states. (The Bill of Rights was initially meant to apply against the federal government alone, since a strong federal government was what most of the Framers feared; most state constitutions already guaranteed most of the rights it laid out.) Even today, those who call themselves "conservative" in the traditional sense favor a smaller federal government and higher state autonomy, while those who call themselves traditional "liberals" favor a larger and more pervasive federal government. (This also ties into strict vs. loose constructionism, the debate over how much the Constitution should be "interpreted" to apply to current events.) In a way, this debate has helped our country, since it's made people aware of the importance of balance between the different levels of government.
As a footnote, I've always thought that the parliamentary system was rather strange; the idea that a government can just be dissolved or that elections can be held at any time seems to put too much power in the hands of those elected. I also think that separating the duties of chief of state and head of the executive branch ignores the necessary interplay that these two functions of leadership need. In my opinion, the knowledge that our elections, both federal and state, are regular, and that our elected officials have strictly set terms, is a good safeguard against one small group of individuals taking on too much power.
-
Originally posted by Ace
I'll argue that in all honesty the US doesn't know what it wants.
The same folks who argue against the federal government having too much power are the same ones who openly admit to wanting to elect "strong presidents"/fatherly figures to run the federal government. (as opposed to a candidate that may have personal flaws but is closer ideal wise to what they want, "a strong leader is needed for a strong nation!!111 I'd rather have that than a soccer mom/dad!")
Such individuals by their very nature will increase the federal government's power, (look at every "important" president in the 20th century) the exact opposite of what they claim they want.
Personally I don't even pretend to believe in states rights. Nice concept, but it failed during a little, utterly unimportant, thing called the CIVIL WAR. Since then the US, face it, is a federalist state.
Even prohibition was fortunately a success in its failure because the "state's rights" version of the law was the worst of both worlds. (organized crime in the prohibition states dealing with legitimate business in regular states) Good 'ol Volstead and his fundie allies allowed for such an extreme situation where the criminal violence of prohibition was revealed and the act was repealed.
I think the most important fact with 'states rights' is that the US that exists today is simply nothing like the US that was created by the founding fathers. It is interconnected in ways that they simply could never have conceived of. No longer are states totally (or nearly so) self-sufficient like they were a couple centuries ago, now they are just one part of the whole.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the US system, but it was designed for a different time and a different kind of nation. And you can only patch a building so many times before you have to tear it down and rebuild it - not necessarily violently, but I'm sure there's many a way the US' system could be reformed to match the times.
-
Agreed Shrike. Mongoose, you also have pointed out exactly what I meant.
By having the executive branch powerful, there is no way you can have small government.
Despite the problems of the parliamentary system, I find it more adaptable than the US system. There's no pretenses about the importance of a single document more than anything else.
Yes, a constitution is a fine concept. But the problem is, it's just like a theology. You'll have literalists and "living document" types who both ignore the point: it's supposed to be a tool of the people to make their lives better, not the other way around.