[OT] Bush vs. Gore - Was: [Sussex] Linux is capitalism, Microsoft is communism?

[Stephen Williams]

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 19:29, Geoffrey John Teale wrote:
> Wow, I really don't have time to keep up with this debate I'm afraid.
> However, I'll try my best ;-)
> 
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 18:21 +0000, Stephen Williams wrote:
> > Nice to see you've done your homework Geoff. Personally I'm not
> > concerned enough to worry about it. I'm more concerned that John
> > Prescott (and others) are campaigning for a referendum in favour of
> > regional authorities contrary to UK electoral law. Do we really need
> > more politicians?
> 
> Here we can agree - better democracy does not mean having more figure
> head bodies, it means having truer representation where the power really
> rests.  I for one would support the following:
> 
>  - The removal of the monarch as the head of state (that doesn't mean I
> want us to stop having a Queen, it means she shouldn't at any level be
> involved in our system of government).

We're very close to this position anyway.

> - The abolition of the house of lords.

Why not have a fully elected second chamber? The best legislatures are
tricameral, so there's room for change.

> - The removal of religuous text and procedure from government.

I agree entirely.

> - The replacement of the "first past the post" electoral system with
> "one person one vote" on a national scale.  Whilst the Conservatives
> have traditionally been against proportional represntation I have a
> feeling they might change there minds following the next general
> election.  As a "smaller" party they'll begin to see that there
> representation in parliament is a much lower percentage than percentage
> of people across the country who support them.  Whilst that might suit
> my political views, it wouldn't be a true representation of the country
> as a whole and is thus a step further than I'd like to be from true
> democracy.

I'm not sure the Conservatives will be a "smaller" party after the next
election. They aren't at a local or european level. The thing about
first past the post is that it tends to produce a result, whereas PR
tends to produce coalitions. Now this wouldn't be too bad but the likely
ruling coalition in this country would be a Labour/Lib Dem one, and the
Lib Dems shouldn't be trusted to run a whelk stall let alone anything
bigger. This coalition would very likely become entrenched permanently
with little threat of removal, and would therefore tend to become more
corrupt and less repsonsive to the voters. That would suit my political
views even less than the current situation. So no, I don't agree with
you on this one.

> 
> > However, I still do not believe that the US Supreme Court, or the US
> > people, would tolerate electoral fraud.
> 
> ..and yet when people complain about this kind of fraud, with solid
> evidence to support their complaint you dismiss them as "whingers"?  You
> can't have it both ways?  How more intollerant can you get?
> 
> Question.. did the left wing claim the same when Bush Snr won, or when
> Reagan won?  This isn't just normal political game playing, or whinging,
> this is a significant proportion of a nation (and indeed other nations)
> looking at the available facts and complaining about an injustice.  The
> problem is that this injustice was carried out at the highest level of
> the US legal system.  The US supreme court blantantly disregarded the
> will of the voters of the state of Florida and decide an election in a
> non-democratic manner.  Kill duke and your a muderer, kill a king and
> you're king...
> 
> I'm not making this up.. the republican party has audited and ratified
> the count of votes in Florida and has agreed that Gore obtained more
> votes than Bush, despite all the messing around with chads and illegal
> military proxy votes.. so even the republican party admits that Bush did
> not win Florida in democratic election.  Without Florida Bush did not
> have the electoral college votes to win the presidency and as such he is
> president of the USA because five supreme court judges appointed by
> Republicans and with strong ties to that party declared him to be so.
> 

You've missed the point. It's an issue for the Americans, not us. Yes,
the world may have to live with the result, but the rest of the world
has no influence and no vote in the US Presidential elections.

If the Americans felt strongly enough something would have been done.
The fact that the situation has remained as it has suggests:

a) The vote was satisfactory in the first place.

or:

b) It wasn't, but the Americans aren't troubled enough to force a change
to the result.

There is no point me losing sleep over this issue as I have no influence
and little personal interest in the course of events in Florida during
the US Presidential elections. It's an issue for the Americans. You
might try to argue otherwise, but we don't have a vote so we can't
influence the result. The Guardian newspaper has made an arse of itself
trying to do just that.

> I wonder how you would feel if we all voted in the next general election
> and it looked like the Conservative party won, but the Labour party
> demanded a recount and during that recount got a court order to stop
> that recount and declare Tony Blair prime minister?  Would you feel
> agreived?  Would you whine about it?  Where would you mount your
> challenge to that decision?  How many people would believe you if, for
> example Rupert Murdoch's media outlets desided to declare your views as
> lunatic?  
> 

It wouldn't happen for a number of reasons.

The Returning Officer at each count decides when enough recounts have
been taken. One good thing about the first past the post system is the
results are usually declared quickly - most constituency results are
declared within 6-10 hours of the polls closing, so there is little time
to intervene via the courts, and there would have to be strong evidence
of electoral fraud for the courts even to consider action.

Besides, the English have never felt inhibited from rioting violently in
the face of serious injustice, and I suspect they would do the same
again if faced with the situation you mention.

And I really don't think I'm ever going to be important enough to appear
on Rupert Murdoch's radar screen, which is just fine as far as I'm
concerned.

> The simple truth is that if people in a position of power, and with
> powerful friends, desides something then there's very little the average
> citizen can do about it.  In the words of Frank Zappa, "as it applies to
> you and me our country isn't free".
> 
> > 
> > Interesting program on Channel 4 on this very topic last night. Not very
> > edifying for those involved.
> 
> Yup I saw it.  I don't think we're that much better over here.  The
> money involved isn't as big, but it's hard to ignore the links that the
> Labour party have with Microsoft, formula one, the Casino industry and
> indeed your friend and mine Rupert Murdoch.  Nor is it hard to see how
> EDS got a succession of government contracts under the tories in the
> 80's and early 90's...
> 
> > In the end I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to
> > politics.
> 
> Happily so.  While I hold stong views it's important that all of us are
> allowed to have and express any views will truely feel.
> 
> My respect for peoples opions is based one criteria alone.  Did they
> form that opinion after rational thought based on good information or
> did they read it in the (Daily Mail || Daily Express || Sun ||Mirror ||
> Evening Standard || The Times || The Telegraph || The Beano) or see it
> on (Sky News || Fox News || CNN || ITN || Al-jazera || Men & Motors)?