ENOUGH!!!

[movieman1957]

We've probably needed a good debate on the Electoral College for some time but for all the focus placed on it no one has felt an urgent need to bring up a proposed amendment to the Constitution (at least that I have heard.)

It no doubt served its purpose back at the founding of the country but does it still have that need? Nothing will happen until Congress gets enough pressure to start something.

[bryce]

Why, on God's Green Earth, would the legislature even want to address the electoral college issue? There is no urgent need to these people because there is no need at all. The electoral college serves very little purpose in landslide elections or where the winner is clearly defined - such as in the cases of Nixon's second term and both of Reagan's - and has only been utilized a handful of times for its intended purpose. It isn't evil, it still has a clearly defined need, and in 2000, it functioned as intended, just as it did in the elections of 1876 and 1888. 1824 is a very special case, but I firmly believe it proves the electoral colleges necessity and how the way in which it is conducted today is more beneficial to our country than the way it functioned in previous times. This country operates on a majority - not plurality - rules basis, and while Gore might have won the popular vote by a mere half a percent - 500,000 votes, the population of Tucson, Arizona - he didn't win the majority. Bush won the majority of states, minor as they may be, however, a full half more than Gore even, and as such, you could draw two conclusions from this: to elect Gore would have been to have elected a fractionally more popular candidate while snubbing the bulk of the union's representation. In electing Bush, we elected a fractionally less popular candidate that represented the bulk of the union's legislatures. In one way, we snub the populace, in another, we snub the legislatures. Funny how closely that resembles the parties' mentalities on states rights themselves - one couldn't give a damn about them and the other gives too much of a damn.

It's easy to blame the electoral college, and depending on which side of the fence you sit, it's right, too. Unfortunately, it's also a scapegoat no matter how you look at it. Bush and Gore are interchangeable personae representing the very worst of American politics. To pretend that either would have acted differently is to live with one's head in the sand. Bush didn't go to war, just as Gore wouldn'tve; the American public went to war. Our hysteria after September 11th would've forced anyone's hand, and I dare you to think otherwise. All the support for the then-current administration allowed them to do was see their own agenda through, something that would've been done no matter who was in office because that's politics.

I'm tired of all the blame when the buck stops here, with us. It's easy to say we're being led by masterminds of an otherworldly intelligence, but it's just not the truth. Look at Britain. It's through their own populace's laziness, disinterest and polarization that their incompetent bumbling leaders are so easily able to pull the wool over their eyes, not through any brilliant grand scheme on the politicians' part. You want better candidates, you need not necessarily better educated voters (although that would be nice), you need voters who can and care to suss out the truth while wading hip deep in BS. Frankly, most voters aren't too keen on putting work into this whole election thing, even the self-aware ones who feign interest by making long-winded overblown faux-intellectual excessively wordy posts on classic film message boards, so what do we expect for participating in this sham? Idiots voting for idiots - God bless America.

[charliechaplinfan]

Look at Britain. It's through their own populace's laziness, disinterest and polarization that their incompetent bumbling leaders are so easily able to pull the wool over their eyes, not through any brilliant grand scheme on the politicians' part. .

I can't say that I like your generalisation Bryce. I wonder how well you know the British. Nobody I know would fit into this category, true there must be some people like that, there is in every nation. The Labour party has been elected three times because it made itself electable. You know me to be no fan of the Labour party but despite this I'm still patriotic.

I finds your generalisation quite insulting to the British nation.

[mrsl]

Bryce said: "most voters aren't too keen on putting work into this whole election thing, even the self-aware ones who feign interest by making long-winded overblown faux-intellectual excessively wordy posts on classic film message boards, so what do we expect for participating in this sham?"

This is the General TV and Media thread. After the past 8 years especially, if you live in the U.S., the presidential election should be uppermost in your mind if you are over 21. It seem perfectly proper to discuss the election on this thread since TV and media is also covering it. I recall when I complained about TCM having the Underground on Friday night, people said, "simply change the channel", and they were 100% correct - that's all I had to do. If this subject bores you, simply don't read it, or check out the last post and if the discussion is still going on, you know you don't want to hang around, as I choose not to contribute to the thread discussing voyeurism.

Gas prices have cut my groups visiting privileges drastically from weekly to monthly so I have less opportunity to discuss such things with my peers. If I choose to post about politics, and someone responds, I'm happy to talk with them. The language and attitude on the political sites I go to can get quite nasty and here at least it's civil.

Anne

[bryce]

I was being self-deprecating. I do care.

In response to charliechaplinfan: I'm not sure what to say to that.

[movieman1957]

My only thought of it all was people complain about it. They don't understand it and when it does come into play they claim it antiquated and no longer relevant. I don't agree with that view. I didn't mean to imply I had a problem with it.

If people want it changed they will have to raise enough hell about it to get the Congress to do something. I guess with all that went on in the Bush/Gore election if that is not enough to get people to look at changing it then maybe nothing will. However, if they don't want to do it then they should sit down and let it go.

Whether it should be changed is a discussion for another day.

[mrsl]

Quickly, I want to return to the original thought behind this thread - Basically, speeches and what they say, as well as how they say it.

I have to say I'm looking forward to hearing McCains' acceptance speech. I've never really heard him speak for any length of time. I admit I wasn't that interested in the Rep primary. None of the running folks turned me on very much. The Dems had Obama whom I've liked since seeing him in some of the local things around Chicago. Of course I was also interested in Hillary, and Kucinich seemed to make a lot of sense.

The most I know about McCain is he is quite old, has had heart trouble and was a war MIA for five years. It's about time that MIA stuff was over and done with. The guys who went to Canada to avoid the draft were punished if caught, but the guys who were drafted, or joined voluntarily, were treated like crap when they returned as if they started the war instead of the government forcing them to go. That whole Vietnam thing was a blight just as this Iraq thing is.

I'm anxious to hear what McCain has to say. Will he talk about global warming, social security, medical assistance for elderly. Will he wipe out that stupid mess Bush started with the 'Part D' foolishness, or will he give us some sort of agenda as to how and when the guys come home from Iraq? ? ? ? Or will he talk about what prayers should be said in school, or whether abortion should be legal. Will he talk about raising taxes to cover the high cost of importing oil, or about building a 'Great Wall of Mexico'? ? ? ? ?

We will find out, won't we? I can't wait!!!!!

Anne

[charliechaplinfan]

Bryce, I think the right thing to do is to apologise for your words. I think you have very strong opinions and you have been very quick to dismiss the British and how they vote, although why we should come in for such censure I don't know.

I would never think to come on this board and post anything disrespectful about any other person or nation. Maybe I'm too sensitive or patriotic but there are at least two members of this board who have been posting on this thread who are British, so please if you must talk about our country be more specific and tactful. I'm more than happy to explain our way of government as many of you have done for me or to engage in a discussion about our elections.

Despite all this, I've found this to be a very enjoyable and informative thread. I agree with what Anne says, now we should go back to talking about the events in the forthcoming election.

Sarah Palin's speech has been very well received by our media.

[moira finnie]

Let's take a breath, here, please.

Bryce,
I can usually detect your mischievous streak as well as your passionately concerned side in your well written posts, but I'm not sure if you're serious about any of that stuff you wrote about the Brits. I was enjoying reading the exchanges here, yours as well as others, but especially those between Alison and Stuart about the peregrinations of British politics. I don't think the electoral college is as harmless a constitutional arrangement in this country as you assert, but I do have a tough time when you segue into unnecessary comments about the U.K.

I tend to think that wherever human beings try to rule themselves, for better or worse, they will be helped and hindered by the paradoxical nature of human nature, so I'm not really too eager to point out the flaws in others, (especially since that hasn't worked out too well whenever Americans have tried that tack before). I think you could have made your valid point without that detour to the British Isles, myself.

Anne,
I'm not sure if having the political conventions back to back is a good or bad thing. For me, some of it's enjoyable, some of it's mildly informative, (I get more out of the paper and such), but maybe if a week intervened between gatherings of the ideologically certain of various stripes, it would've been okay too. Btw, John McCain has not had heart problems, he has had two bouts with skin cancer (both in remission), has long term arthritis and limited mobility in his arms thanks to his time in Hanoi, and is not really older than Reagan was at the time he last served as POTUS.

While I share your weariness with the Vietnam War and all the pain it entailed, I suspect that the scar on the nation's soul and the after-effects will be with us for a couple of generations, at least. I'm not crazy about seeing it used for political ends today, but at least during this mindless war, the veterans of the conflict are being treated with some real concern and respect by the majority of citizens, (one of several reasons why that earlier war never goes away). Vietnam is on the nation's conscience to this day.

[MichiganJ]

Wow, a lots happened since I last checked in.

Bryce wrote:

Why, on God's Green Earth, would the legislature even want to address the electoral college issue? There is no urgent need to these people because there is no need at all.

I couldn’t disagree more about the Electoral College. Too much of the country is entirely ignored, and instead, the election hinges on a few states. While I think the country is ready for using the popular vote (it is, after all, understandable), I wouldn’t be opposed, if we want to stay with the goofy 538 electors, IF they would be apportioned by the state’s popular vote. This would assure that your vote at least counts for the person you voted for, whether they win the majority of electoral votes from your state or not. BUT this will only work if every state does it. You can’t just be dividing up California. (Although, if you insist, we can do just Texas).
The way it is now, what incentive is there for a conservative to vote in MA? The Founders set up the Electoral College back in the day when the general population was politically unaware, and frankly, far more illiterate, thus the need for educated electors. Now, though, it’s arcane, flawed, and, quite honestly, disenfranchising.

Our hysteria after September 11th would've forced anyone's hand, and I dare you to think otherwise.

Well, since I was living in France during 9/11, I actually do think otherwise. Too many sore points here that I’d rather not go into (having grown up in Northern New Jersey I can say I was directly impacted), but most of my feelings reflect more a sympathy and regrettably, not an empathy, and while I can understand what the country went through, being an ex-pat, my hysteria was somewhat different.

All the support for the then-current administration allowed them to do was see their own agenda through, something that would've been done no matter who was in office because that's politics.

While 9/11 may have allowed a President Gore to “see his agenda through”, his “agenda” most certainly wouldn’t have included going to war with Iraq. And let’s face it, Iraq is the cause of most of our current ills, from gas prices, to the resurgence of Russia. Oh, and the definition of “torture” wouldn’t have changed.

[Dewey1960]

With respect (or lack thereof) to the Republican VP nominee:
http://www.sarahpalin.typepad.com/

[bryce]

I told you it would be a bad idea if I joined this thread. I see a lot of assumptions being tossed about here, about my intent and about Judith's earlier, and it's the exact reason I hate discussing politics online. Someone will always get hurt over some perceived slight. I also fail to see how my comments about English government are unnecessary. For better or for worse, our two fates as nations are intertwined, and you can usually tell one's future by the other's present.

Taking offense to a comment which is not only not directed at you but obviously does not apply bewilders me. You and Stuart are obviously fine examples of what every country's populace should be. You are informed, you know the ins and outs of your candidates, you know their faults and their strengths, and you're both civil. How did what I write appear to apply to you or Stuart? I'm not completely tactless, if I didn't like the design or color of your teapot I certainly wouldn't say.

You accuse me of dismissing the British, yet I think it's you who dismiss me. It's easy to make assumptions from thousands of miles away - no, I am not unaware of the implications that statement regarding my own opinions of British government and its relationship with its populace - but you mistake my forceful tone as that of an agendist or someone with hidden motives. In fact, it's quite the contrary, I love Britain. I want to live in Britain. I admire your government. I admire your people's strength. I admire the British spirit. I admire the workingman's attitude much more than our own. I admire the way in which, at one point in the recent past, your little island produced nearly everything it used itself with very little importation. I admire the way Parliament operates. I admire the civility, however superficial it may be, your politicians possess. I also admire their candor. For being a few thousand miles away, I do my best to be as painfully aware of your country's successes, as well as its shortcomings, every bit as much as my own, if not more aware of them, as I view England as a more intelligent, harder working, harder playing, more creative version of America (there's more than meets the eye with my phrasing of this statement) that is slightly freer of corporate influence and corruption in the higher ranks. This is to the point where most of my artistic consumption is British, from the books I read to the music I listen to and the television I watch (perhaps not movies, though), I've lived with British expatriates and I spend a good amount of time communicating with British citizens. I also frequently used to wake early to watch Parliament argue. An expert? No! I never could be. Someone completely in love with your country, everything it is and could be? Yes!

I said earlier I wasn't completely tactless, and I'm not: I'm deeply sorry if anything I said affected you, Stuart, or any of our very fine British friends. No strings and no qualifications, I'm just plain sorry. I hope not to step on your toes again in the future, but if I should be careless (or mischevious, as moira knows far too well and knows I can be), I hope that maybe you'll forgive me as a flawed but incredibly passionate person that loves your country far more than his own. Reading Stuart and your thoughts on English government has been incredibly interesting and informative, not to mention the way in which you both communicate. It's fascinating, to be honest. Distinctly British. I hope that neither of you stop your wonderful 'banter.'

--

Kevin, I'm very glad you chimed in! While you and I disagree on the electoral college's usefulness and pertinence, I fully support your idea of forcing the electors to be apportioned. It is the next logical advancement from the current system of all of a state's electors voting for the candidate which wins majority in their state. I still argue that you will always be fighting the battle of populace v. legislature, but at least your idea would shift the focus away from swing states and onto the nation as a whole. Partially. Anyway, are you sure we're more politically aware and literate now? The Simple Life was a hit show, after all...

Again, foot in mouth, it seems. I'm sorry if what I wrote cuts close to the bone. It wasn't my intention. I only wanted to highlight the fact that between the general populace's thirst for revenge (under the thin veil of justice) and the media's penchant for sensationalism, America turned into a raving mob. Bush and company certainly fed and milked the hysteria for all they're worth and Gore would've had a much more measured and steady response, but would things have been much different? Afghanistan is guaranteed, and it might only have been through Bush's familial ties to the Saudis that allowed us to have such easy access to the middle east.

In the end, we might have traded Iraq for harsher emissions regulations and higher gas taxes. We might have a better plan for renewable energy. We would've traded one agenda for another, and nearly all of Gore's plans would lead to higher oil and energy costs. We could argue all day long about the resurgence of Russia, but it would have happened at some point, if not now then in ten years. My point was never that things would be just as bad under Gore (I feel they would be, simply in different ways), just that it would have been business as usual in Washington. There are a million what-ifs - from "Would Gore's dilly-dallying over invading Afghanistan have allowed bin Laden to get away?" to "Why is abortion legal but swearing in music not?" - that I can't answer, but I suspect Gore's reality would have been just as harsh on America as Bush's, if for no other reason than we, the people, demanded it, and our government, Europe, Asia and the UN, gave it to us.

Maybe I've given up on people, the cynic inside has won and the lover inside has died. That's such a sad train of thought.

--

Lastly, regarding Sarah Palin, our media's take has been very interesting. In public, many members of the media are polarized: she will either sink the McCain campaign or serve as its lifesaver. In private, the rumor mill as well as discussions overheard, recorded or made public indicate that the overwhelming view is largely negative, that her career is destroyed and that she is an awful choice made by a candidate simply being given his turn so he gets out of the way. I won't bother commenting on their private thoughts except to say that I'm surprised they aren't airing such thoughts. I'd say it's a good thing that our media is taking a more journalistic (see: unbiased) approach, except it's still business as usual, just a bit more sterilized.

What are the British journos saying?

[mrsl]

Well, here's where I get sunk by a lot of you. Another pile of bull-hockey, this guy never said a word of meaning in 46 minutes, except the 6 times he slurred Obama's promises. Apparently I was correct in fearing his platform was gong to be the fact that he was a war hero. My first boyfriend I ever kissed was killed in Nam about 6 months after we graduated, so don't think I don't have any thoughts or memories of that time. In fact he was the first of 3 so . . . . enough said.

After listening to 20 minutes of him thanking everyone from his wife to Ms. Palin, we got to hear the details of his imprisonment, then how we should join him in FIGHTING to get our country back from the *****mongers who now control it. Well, Mr. McCain - How do we do that? He said WHAT to do, but failed to give any minute INTENTIONS of HOW to go about it. Obama at least gave us brief remarks of his intended methods of his plan for change. McCain seems like a really nice guy, but another non-public speaker, lordy, lordy, lordy.

You have to admit one thing. In his speech, Obama said nothing about McCain except admiration for him as a war hero, a good father, husband, and family man. McCain might have garnered a little admiration from me if he had kept off the subject of Obama in this one speech. What was his need to slam the man - couldn't he keep it clean as Obama said he was going to do? I detest this childish mud slinging. It is so useless and makes the slinger look foolish.

Moira: Thanks for correcting me on McCains' physical infirmities. I guess I got him a little confused with Cheney.

This Republican candidate has said nothing tonight to change my thoughts on which party has the best candidate.

Anne

[charliechaplinfan]

Bryce, I'm glad you apologised and can see how your comments hurt me. I'm glad you love Britain and all things Britsh. Here's a good time to move on and discuss the election. You apology is accepted and I hope you will continue to contribute to this thread.

As for Sarah Palin, she has had very good press over here. The issue of her pregnant daughter is a non issue here. The people who have an interest in the American election here, aren't the type of people who think that her daughter's pregnancy is a big deal. Remember I listen to the left wing BBC, Radio 4 (Bryce you'd love Radio 4, it used to be the Home Service) the impression I get is that McCain has gone out on a limb bringing her in as Vice Presidential candidate but her speech was very good, she might not be a natural public speaker but she came across very, very well and has seemed to have energised McCain's campaign. I've seen the pictures of her family and her greeting McCain, the thing I find most strange is that they hardly know each other. Why should I find this so strange? I've presumed that Presidents and Vice Presidents have had good working relationships beforehand and have carried on into the White House.

On a very superficial note now and I must apologise becoase it is Friday night here but why does she remind me of Wonderwoman? Obviously someone who has 5 kids, one being a small baby with Downs Syndrome, been with the same husband for many years, how does she have time to be the Governor of Alaska let alone Vice President? The other resemblence is her hair, didn't Wonderwoman have her hair like that as Diana Prince? before she changed into Wonderwoman?

The last thing to say about Wonderwoman is why isn't it shown to our children today. When I was at school there were girls spinning around all over the yard playing Wonderwoman. Kids today are missing out

[melwalton]

WOW!
Before reading all these recent posts, I thought we had a good country with a good political system (comparatively, I mean ). Like the fella said we live and learn.

Had I known what was coming, I'd have moved to a Pacific island with the cocoanuts and bananas and NO politicians while still young>
Seriously, I don"t see armageddon just around the corner. We survived Grant, Harding, Coolidge and some othere dillys including the present one.
on the subject of British politicians, I like the remark made about (I think it was Balfour ) It went something like this, 'He never gets excited, he knows there was an ice age, he expects another. .... mel