Technically you are correct, but in practice there is little difference
here. Swing voters typically are the deciding factor in the election of the
electoral college which overwhelmingly follows the electorate's mandate. It
is a weird system but it remains because it does little harm. You are
mistaken about Clinton's first victory - he won a plurality of the national
level vote and the electoral college. He did not win a majority because of
the existence of the Perot campaign. However, you are correct that such
things have occurred before (twice if I remember correctly). [incidentally,
over the longer term, swing voters are not nearly so important as
generational replacement in deciding elections]
If you want more choices in your politics, any third rate political
scientists could show you how it is done in an instant. The constrained
choice between two candidates which are frequently thought of as
insufficient is a necessary function of the electoral laws that we have -
set in place by the constitution - in which the majority winner takes all in
atomized geographically defined competitions (i.e. congressional districts).
It can be shown quite easily (Black's median-voter theorem) that under all
but extraordinary circumstances this produces two parties which race to the
middle of the political landscape - he how gains the vote of the 'median'
voter wins. Third parties may exist, but their days are numbered in this
scenario.
The resultant two party system squashes entire range of political issues
(which are multi-dimensional: interventionism, free-trade, pro-labor,
pro-life, etc, etc) into a two dimensional space (i.e. Liberal versus
Conservative). The squashed nature of the debate fits nobody very well.
Everyone is dissatisfied because we all are more sophisticated than to think
only in two dimensions.
Democratic systems can be ranked in terms of their ability to produce
"clear" winners versus their representativeness (i.e how closely the
resulting government mirrors popular opinion). These tend to be
contradictory, as I am sure you can image. Our system clearly favors having
a "clear" winner at the cost of representativeness.
Is this good or bad? Neither - simply a choice. However, the lack of
representativeness is clear in public frustration with politics and lack of
participation. This situation is unlikely to be rectified (assuming it is a
problem) because Americans generally spend little time considering that
there are a multitude of different "democratic" systems which don't
necessarily lead to the same result. We are very reticent to consider that
the basic structure of government that we "enjoy" and is enshrined in the
constitution could be improved upon.
However, consider this - American Political Scientists have designed many of
the democratic governments around the world. (Japan, much of Europe, etc)
and we have not yet designed one that looks like the U.S.
Now I gotta shut up about all of this before I get kicked off this list!
Michaell
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Jamin Collins
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:10 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: US Elections
Sorry to continue off-topic, but there are a few items I feel need cleared
up.
You have a slight misnomer here, elections are most certainly not decided by
the "swing voter" (as you put it). Shockingly enough, the election
is not even decided by the millions of people that turn out to the polls
thinking their vote counts. The sad fact of the mater is that elections are
decided only by the electoral votes. What impact does this have? Simple,
it means that the power to elect a President of America rests in a small
sub-set of America. There have been a few occurrences where the popular
(read majority of public voters) have elected one candidate only to have the
electoral (read small sub-set) elect the other candidate. IIRC, this
happened with Clinton's first election, the public voted for Bush and the
electoral for Clinton.
It is because of this sad fact that I will never vote in another American
Presidential election again. Why should anyone vote when there is nothing
to force the electoral voters to vote the same way?
Additionally, why as a country should we be forced to choose the lesser of
two evils when it comes to our President (assuming of course that we are the
ones that choose). Why not instead add an option to the ballet that says
"None - restart" or something to that effect, which in essence means: I
don't want any of the options that have been presented as I don't find
anyone of them fit for the job. Additionally, if this option has the
majority vote, it results in what would essentially be a whole new campaign
with new candidates. If something like this were in place (again assuming
that the people were the ones whose votes counted) I'm fairly certain you
would see more involvement from the American public when it comes to
electing their officials. Hell, we might actually get qualified people to
choose from.
Feel free to begin flaming now.
Jamin W. Collins
-----Original Message-----
From: Michaell Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: US Elections
Wow. Talk about not wanting to start a flame war!!
Seems like the debate here is even more full of
mis-statements than the ones that are complained of.
Getting back to the original question, non-Americans have a
difficult time understanding American politics. Generally, European leaders
are brought up through the ranks, serving in various high level capacities
prior to assuming the top position. European leaders normally understand
the workings of each Ministry (American read Department here) of the
government - having lead many of them previously. Americans, both Democrats
and Republicans, have a distrust - nearly genetic disposition if you will -
of government when compared to Europeans. There are many reasons for this
including 1) cultural, 2) the degree of atomization of authority and thus
responsibility in the American system (which we demand with it comes to
authority and despise when it comes to responsibility), 3) electoral system
laws which force parties to be quite weak, 4) diverse geography which
reinforces the weakness (issues have not only ideological content, but
historically strong geographical content as well).
The result is that Europeans have extremely short
"campaigns" between parties, less on personalities, which focus more on
issues and stances. Contenders are highly qualified, but might be termed
"insiders" in an American context. American's distrust the insider. US
Presidents are frequently elected with far less experience than a European
leader would ever have when elected.
By far the majority of American's who vote do so based on
solid analysis and/or ideological gut feelings. However, the sort of
electoral laws result in two parties inevitably (nearly so anyway) evenly
splitting the electorate. Elections are decided frequently by the "swing
voters" who don't have solid opinions about politics, don't really follow
politics, not normally interesting in public issues (scary eh). These people
care about issues, how things are going, but also personalities a bit more
than "normal voters". - Thus, our campaigns tend to be longer (when
undecided people don't read newspapers - how do you get to them? Answer: a
barrage of television ads) and more personal.
Are US elections a Hollywood show? No, though they may
appear to be. There is no evidence that campaigns effect voters choices
significantly - we are smarter than that. If Americans had 4-5 week
campaign periods, like those that are common in Europe, the results would be
very close to the same as it is now. American campaigns simply reinforce
political opinions and positions that we had before the campaigns began.
Let me ask a viewer 10 questions before a Presidential debate, and with a
92% accuracy level, I'll predict who they said won the debate after they
finish viewing it. People tend to hear their candidate say what they want
their candidate to say. The remaining 8% will change their minds frequently
in reaction to press coverage over the next several days.
So why do the campaigns exist? Better question, what is to
stop them? Candidates are willing to try anything to get elected - even
two, 3, 4 year campaigns spending millions. Advertisers? Media? Political
consultants? Everybody makes money off of the campaign. There are no brakes
on the process. On the positive side, a presidential campaign is the only
time that this highly fragmented nation really talks about itself, where we
are going, where we want to go. Even if only a handful of people change
their minds, the discussion is probably good. Smaller, less fragmented
nations have such discussions in less spectacular ways and more often - but
hey this is America.
Sorry to have continued an 'off-the-wall' subject, but the
thread touched my Political Scientist side of this linux enthusiast.
========================
Michaell Taylor, PhD
Senior Economist, Reis.com, New York, USA
Professor of Political Science, NTNU, Norway
Professor of Statistics, UofD, South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
<mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> On Behalf Of Ward William E
PHDN
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:07 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing
the Internet?
Let's not get in a flame war and hear about how the media of
other countries
can be just as manipulative as the media here in the US.
However, seen by many in the US, Al Gore is a slick,
uncaring, big spending
lawyer who knows as much about the common man's condition as
I do of being
filthy rich, i.e., none. He was raised by a career
politician with his own
(thwarted) political ambitions to be one thing: president,
regardless of
what that meant. And Al has tried to achieve that goal, by
any means
necessary. He has consistently shown that he is willing to
do, or say
what it takes, regardless of his own personal beliefs. In
1991-92,
before Al became Vice President, I fervently hoped that he
would become
president, as in general, I liked many of the things he
said. As vice
president of perhaps the most corrupt and morally destitute
Presidency
in history, he went along, supporting and defending
President Clinton,
and by both his accounts (prior to the Lewinsky scandal) and
the presidents,
he's been a player in the administration; now that that may
not be a
good asset to have, he's seriously backed off his own
accomplishments
in the administration. Al has been caught MANY times
"misspeaking or
missrembering". He gets away with it due to a strong
liberal stance
in many media sources, and a VERY strong, VERY liberal
stance of Hollywood.
Al Gore's "honest reasons" for becoming president are that
he wants to
be the most powerful man in the world.
George W. Bush is not a charlatan... but he's not a savior,
either. He
comes in with EXACTLY as much experience as Bill Clinton had
when he became
president, which Clinton and the other Democrats said was
MORE than
sufficient. He has indeed "misspoke" and "missrembered" at
times, but
certainly not more than Al Gore has. BTW, in your comment,
you betrayed
a very UN-American thought process (but since you are an
American, it's
to be expected): Bush CANNOT be "seeking office on false
grounds"; there
are no false grounds to seek office in. Each person put up
for president
simply says that they will serve in office to the best of
their abilities.
George Bush's "false grounds" for seeking office are that he
wants to be
the most powerful man in the world.... same as Al's honest
reason. Both
think they can do a better job than the other, which I don't
see in either
case being more honest or more false than the other.
My honest and informed vote (and as an American, mine counts
in this) is
that if I could so choose, I would choose neither; forced to
choose one
or the other, it's time for a change, and I'll vote for
Bush. I'd much
rather, however, have had choices such as Bill Bradley and
Elizabeth Dole
to choose from.
Of course, it really doesn't matter which we choose, in the
long run;
they are both counting on things happening after the
election that will NOT
happen. Hang on folks, with either of these two, we're
about to have a
recession (it's already started up, folks are just ignoring
it at the
moment),
and it's my strong belief that this presidency is a "one
term wonder"
shot...
because by the time the next election starts, the economy is
going to be
in a shambles.
Oh, and this is so far off topic here, it's ridiculous. Can
we get back to
Linux, or at least off politics?
Bill Ward
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] <mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing the
Internet?
I donnot understand the fuzz regarding Al Gore on this list.
Seen from
abroad,
he is a serious person seeking the office for honest
reasons.
G. W. Bush is a charlatan seeking the office on false
grounds. He is a
charming
guy that can get away with lying publically on TV. I
wittnessed that in a TV
show the other day.
Is the US election a Hollywood show rather than seeking the
best person
suited
for the most powerfull office in the world?
Rgds
Peter Bech
Informi A/S
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
<https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list>
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
