Blogcritics: Comments on Ralph Nader In The USA Today

Comment by JR

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:10:37 EDT

If the mindset is that radically different, why do we bother trying to share a country? When I read some of the opinions of people here, I just don't think it's worth trying to comprimise.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:56:29 EDT

Nick, while I live in a big city now, I used to live in South Dakota, and I can tell you that there is a radically different mindset and worldview in "flyover country" from the coasts. It's startling. Without the electoral college, this entire country would be run by residents of a few large cities. Archaic? Hardly. Thanks to the electoral college, candidates campaign everywhere, not just the ten biggest cities in the country. The rest of your list reveals that you really haven't spent much time actually thinking about what you're suggesting, but I assure you that people exist outside of NYC, and some of them -- wait for it -- actually have experiences that are worth something.

Comment by Bernard

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 02:43:40 EDT

RJ states (and I summise): The war in Iraq is legal because the American congress said it was. Interesting viewpoint, does that mean that America is really the only country that needs democratic process? Your ruling body is of such wisdom and insight that the rest of the world just needs to sit up and listen. I love the idea, but will you please not vote for people like George W. And the illustrious Peter G. (Is Kenny your brother, if so, I gather you got all the personality and he had to make do with just the saxophone) The difference between a democracy and a representative republic is in your mind that in the latter, the government can simply ignore all politics you don't like? I reside in the company of great minds and great morals indeed. Goodnight to all you gentlefolk

Comment by Shark

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:59:21 EDT

PeterG:"The above ideas make Barry Stoller seem as if his IQ were above four." OOHHHH! Ouch! Our new resident humorist is about to surpass Don Rickles for creative insults! Petey, just a tip for the future: hockeypuck has been used. Just trying to be helpful.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:39:44 EDT

I still say that the Electoral College is an archaic remnant from the days when Americans traveled by horse and cart. We can't vote on everything, but why not the highest elective office in the land? Why MUST the popular vote have state level intercessories? 2000 is not the first Presidential election where the candidate with the most popular votes lost; I want to know why that should even be happening. Call me paranoid, but it smells like some kind of exclusionary Hamiltonian anti-democratic trick to me.

Comment by SCOTTO

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:46:24 EDT

Nothing, good,bad, or otherwise would get done if every single person of voting age voted on every single issue that affects us as a country. Representative republic is about as efficient a government as one could hope for. Perfect? Not hardly. But does perfection exist? I have been over to the Zep area, and have decided(IMHO), that you need the vacation, and Peter G. needs to be locked up. P.S., All conservatives are not racist Bible thumpers anymore than liberals are all idiots devoid of any common sense. The good, the bad , and the ugly on all sides.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:14:02 EDT

That's pretty much my take on the Electoral College, except that I'd substitute "power structure" for "conservative", since I don't believe either wing of the Property Party would ever allow us to decide our own destiny. And if you think Peter G.'s bad here, you should see how abusive he is to me over on the 'Led Zep' thread.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:38:34 EDT

This is the purpose of the electoral college: When a judge makes a ruling, that people don't like....for example, gay marriage.....then conservatives scream and shout about activists judges and demand that these things be put to a vote of the people. Let the majority decide. They say this because they know their opinion is in the majority on that topic. When they know they are not in the majority on something, say perhaps deciding who should be president, they make comments like this one: I for one have no interest in LA and New York city deciding presidential elections because both cities are liberal cesspools. and then they want an Electoral College to ensure majority rule doesn't happen, because they don't happen to be in the majority.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:26:56 EDT

If it's Amendment 12 you're talking about, I've just looked it up and it indeed looks like the archaic artifact I characterized it as above. But I agree, it'll never change, it's too convenient a check to the will of the people. Is there actually any country in the world with a democracy?

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:40:47 EDT

To alter the US Constitution, one needs the support of at least 2/3rds of BOTH Houses of the Congress, as well as the agreement of at least 3/4ths of the state legislatures. Please explain to my why Utah's Senators, Congress-Ctters, and state Reps would support a measure that pretty much moots their electoral power? Or Vermont? Or New Hampshire? Or Wyoming? Or Alaska? Or Montana? Or Idaho? Or Delaware? Or Rhode Island? Or Maine? Or North Dakota? Or South Dakota? Or Hawaii? Or... No need to go on. That's 13. 50 states minus 13 = 37. You need 38 states to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. So sad. Too bad.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:28:04 EDT

"Whether you agree or disagree with the EC, it will never go away. Never. I hope I don't have to explain why...' Mmmmm...because it's too convenient a 'corrective' to the popular vote for the power structure to give up?

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:12:02 EDT

NJ said: "1) Dissolve the Electoral College. Immediately." Whether you agree or disagree with the EC, it will never go away. Never. I hope I don't have to explain why... "3) Demand a paper copy of your electronic vote. If your local voting district refuses to provide a hard copy of your vote, have a friend videotape you casting your vote on election day." How will a videotape help? We have a SECRET BALLOT in this country! Your vote just goes in a pile, anonymously. "4) Ban editorial cartoonists and journalists from portraying third parties and their candidates as whackjobs unless it can be objectively be proved to be true." So, in other words, repeal the First Amendment? This is a solution to the supposed lack of democracy in the US???

Comment by Nick Jones

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:57:47 EDT

But why DON'T we live a democracy, and how do we go about getting one? The Electoral College strikes me as some 19th-Century jerrymandering anachronism that makes a nonsense of the principle of "one man, one vote", an atrophied appendix from the days when votes might take weeks getting from the frontier to New York, Philadelphia, or Washington. I can't tell you much about LA (having spent all of a weekend there about 24 years ago), but I can guarantee you, at least by judging the remnants of my late father's family, that the Irish Catholics of NYC are as black-hating, jew-baiting, xenophobic, and anti-liberal as you could possibly want.

Comment by Peter G.

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:12:13 EDT

Nick "The Moron" Jones, as I shall affectionately refer to you from now on. The above ideas make Barry Stoller seem as if his IQ were above four. We do not live in a FUCKING democracy! We live in a FUCKING representative REPUBLIC! Do away with the Electoral College? You obviously have no grasp of why the EC was put in place in the first place. I for one have no interest in LA and New York city deciding presidential elections because both cities are liberal cesspools. Make sense,fool?

Comment by Nick Jones

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:34:23 EDT

"Ah, Democracy: if we could only get some in America..." 1) Dissolve the Electoral College. Immediately. 2) Keep an eagle eye on what Choicepoint and Diebold (among others) are up to. 3) Demand a paper copy of your electronic vote. If your local voting district refuses to provide a hard copy of your vote, have a friend videotape you casting your vote on election day. 4) Ban editorial cartoonists and journalists from portraying third parties and their candidates as whackjobs unless it can be objectively be proved to be true. Feel free to add to the list.

Comment by Smenkharon

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:35:42 EDT

Wow! RJ is an ignorant moron! He represents what citizens of the world hate about Americans. Leonard Cohen described America perfectly, "the cradle of the best and the worst". Those who seek peaceful progress are the best, the conservative war-mongerers are the worst. Calling people pansies and losers only reflects upon yourself. Those who shout the loudest are typically the liars without the strength to overcome their ignorance.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:34:18 EDT

The majority of contributors to Nader are right wing Republicans. Ah, Democracy: if we could only get some in America...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:21:11 EDT

I may get back to this tomorrow, but in the meantime:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. November 20,2003

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:16:51 EDT

Common Dreams: They're about as "progressive" as Castro...

Comment by brian

Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:02:41 EDT

is US bringing democracy or taking it away? 'Iraq: Sadr Attacks U.S. with Democracy U.S. administrators find this hard to believe, but it could be that Sadr is teaching them a lesson or two on democracy in Iraq. by Aaron Glantz BAGHDAD - Until recently, it was easy to find Sheikh Salim Mejid Jumar, one of Muqtada Sadr's top leaders in Baghdad. Because real democracy is seen by many Iraqis as the enemy to United States occupation and United States interests in Iraq, real democracy is something people who are opposed to the United States occupation support. James Longley, a U.S. documentary filmmaker The cleric dressed in flowing white robes could be found most days in the municipal building of Baghdad's poor and primarily Shia neighborhood Showle. He is a member of the municipal governing council and he came to power last June in an election organized by Sadr's forces. "It wasn't a perfect election," the Sheikh concedes. "But it was fair. It was overseen by academics and religious people and one man from every house was allowed to vote. When we were finished we had a local council that represents the people." It was not supposed to be this way. The occupation Coalition Provisional Authority had declared that Iraq was not ready for elections and had hired the U.S. firm Research Triangle International (RTI) to hand-pick and train local persons to replace politicians appointed by Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime. "It took two months of arguing until we reached a settlement with RTI," Sheikh Jumar told IPS. "First there were two councils in the neighborhood, one elected and one appointed. So RTI had a problem. They didn't want to dismiss the elected body and they didn't want to dismiss their body. Eventually, of the 21 people appointed by RTI five got to stay and the elected ones made up the rest." This tug of war between supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr and the officials and contractors of the occupation authority is playing itself out all around Iraq. Sadr's forces have organized elections in much of the Shia dominated south of Iraq. In some cases they have resorted to violence or intimidation to get their leaders elected. "Around the beginning of the year the mayor of Nassiriyah was kicked out," says James Longley (http://www.littleredbutton.com/), a U.S. documentary filmmaker who has been following the Sadr movement. He says about 2,000 people armed with kalashnikovs protested that he had been appointed by the Americans. After that, Longley says the appointed mayor of Nassiriyah stepped down and a new mayor was appointed following an election organized by supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr. Longley says he is not surprised Sadr's supporters have put so much of their effort into organizing elections. Fair elections would bring Shia dominance since they are the majority of Iraq's population, but he says that is not the most important dynamic in play. "Because real democracy is seen by many Iraqis as the enemy to United States occupation and United States interests in Iraq, real democracy is something people who are opposed to the United States occupation support," he says. All of this has not gone unnoticed by U.S. officials who have now surrounded the holy Shia city of Najaf with tanks and troops, looking to capture or kill the leader of the movement. "He's effectively attempting to establish his authority in place of the legitimate Iraqi government," declared U.S. Administrator L. Paul Bremer the same day he announced a warrant for Sadr's arrest. "We will not tolerate that." Indeed, Sadr's organization is establishing its authority across much of Iraqi society. In a report issued in September last year, the Belgium-based International Crisis Group credits al-Sadr's organization for keeping the peace in poor Shia sections of Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein. "Within weeks of the regime's collapse, al-Sadr's representatives claimed to have employed 50,000 volunteers in east Baghdad to provide refuse collection, hospital meals and traffic control," the report says. "Religious seminaries run by al-Sadr's followers have proliferated," it adds. "In the absence of a functioning public judicial system, Mohammed Fartousi, al- Sadr's agent in (the Baghdad neighborhood) al-Sadr city used his Hikma mosque to establish rudimentary personal status courts. Al-Sadr's wakils, or agents, distributed vests to traffic wardens emblazoned with the words 'hawza police'." But now with Muqtada al-Sadr declared an outlaw, most of the Sadr organization's nation-building activities have been suspended. Al-Sadr has called for a jihad against the United States and its partners in occupation. "The elections were a long time ago, before all this," Sadr's chief in Showle Sheikh Nasser al-Sa'adi told IPS a day after his office was attacked by U.S. Apache helicopters. "Everything is clear. The decent men didn't want to sit on the Governing Council. They are traitors. They're only serving to personal wealth and position." Once the occupation is over, "history will remember who stood where," he says. "The Arab people stand for their history and we will recall where these Governing Council people stood and where the decent people were standing." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-03.htm