Independence Day

[tanarill]

We got up earlyish, for breakfast, and then packed up for Philadelphia. Philadelphia is on a grid, which implied I like it. Or at least that I'm able to navigate.

So, today we went to the Constitution museum and learned about "We the people." My favorite part were the opinion polls, which were privately run:
1. Should people be required to vote?
2. Should the electoral college be tossed?

Give me your opinions, people! I'll post my answers on another day.

Then we came to the hotel and attempted to do laundry. I say attempt because while the washing machine worked fine, the dryer didn't heat and ws therefore somewhat useless in terms of drying things.

Dinner was fake pork and fake shrimp and fake duck at a quite good restaurant. If that is what pork and shrimp actually taste like . . . I'm not only prohibited, I don't actually like them very much. Duck is, of course, Kosher enough that I've had it, and the simulated flavor wasn't bad at all.

Lessee. A Thing: Yesterday and Today were Rosh Khodesh Tammuz (roe-sh khoe-desh Tahm-ooze), which is the part where you celebrate the new month. It's now Tammuz, which is about as remarkable as the month changing to July.

And, hmm. Anyone who feels like it may comment with the name of an Endless, and I will do a portrait of that Endless. I will only do one of each, though, so the max is seven.

Comments

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

1) Yes - but there should be a "none of the above" option on the ballot as well. A system cannot be democratic unless everyone votes and politicians rely too much on voter apathy - if half the electorate votes "none of the above" then maybe the politicians would wake up. People died to found democracy, women and minorities less than 100 years (sometimes much less) fought tooth and nail for the right to vote. It is an insult to all those who struggled not to exercise that right.

2) It seems somewhat bemusing - I can understand wanting smaller states not to be overwhelmed by the larger - but at the moment you have the people in the bigger populace states with much smaller voting power than their fellows in the sparser populated ones - to say nothing of how the "winner takes all" method most states adopt mean that if you are, say a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas you may as well not bother voting at all

[tanarill.livejournal.com]

Yes! Thank you! I am of the firm opinion that every right has an equal responsibility - with the right to vote, it's the responsibility to exercise that right. Although I do feel this American thing where we have one day on which every votes is stupid, if only because if every eligible voter showed there literally wouldn't be enough time in a day. Voting should be a week-long thing, so people can fit it into their schedules. And everyone can show up.

I certainly don't think that the issues of less populous states should be ignored, and there are some sates that only have three electoral votes. On the flip side, I am a big fan of the "one person, one vote" ideal. My favored solution would be to keep the electoral votes but have them awarded, stated by state, in proportion to the way people within the state vote. 57% of Californians vote Democrat? Then 57% of their 55 electoral votes, which rounds to 31, goes to the Democratic candidate. I also think we should cut out the electors and do it by the numbers alone, but it's a holdover from the days when it took six days to get a letter from Boston to Philadelphia . . .


I find it really frightening that an English lawyer understands more about the American electoral process than my fellow Americans. I mean, incredibly scary. How dos this work in England? I know you vote for MPs in the House of Commons, and obviously the PM is the closest you have to a President, but who choses him? (Or her, obviously.) And do the Houses of Parliament have to wear wigs while is session, or is that just the courts?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Aye, the logistics alone would make it a nightmare.

Well yes and no to a degree. This is probably more from a British stand poiunt more than anything and an obviously much smaller population and land to deal with - but are the issues of different people really that massively different? I mean, yes, Rhode Island's voice is going to be much much quieter than New York State's but are the issues of people in New York or California really that different from the the people of Rhode Island's? I mean, you have a lot of devolved power over there - local issues are (in theory) held by the state government? Shouldn't the represnetatives they send to the FEDERAL government be more concerned with the Federation as a whole rather than their little corner? In a way this happens more in Britain - people tend to vote more by party than by individual MP - mainly because it doesn't matter what the MP says the chances are he'll tow the party line when he actually gets to Parliament.

[tanarill.livejournal.com]

Some issues, like 'should we go to war?' are fairly universal. But you also get a lot more issues with illegal immigration in the southern states, on the border with Mexico, and while minimum wage is theoretically a state issue, immigration is a national concern. Michigan has a lot more stake in the alternative fuel and trade taxes on foreign automobiles than most others but trade is a federal mandate. Schools are under control of the states, but a minimum of eight years schooling is federally mandated and we have national standardized tests; too often, this results in an education that gets butchered so that kids will do well on the tests. And while local issues are supposed to be a matter of state and even county government, we get the same problem at the state level; too few voters give a damn about federal elections, much less local ones.

Actually, it's almost totally the opposite. Representatives and Senators tend to vote based on local issues and what they believe is right, rather than how the party as a whole sees the issues. I think that it's at least partially because we don't have a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party, so the ones who want that kind of government have to vote across party lines.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Well I think i know more than most british people - but it's not a difficult system to understand once you get past the culture gap (one of the common reactions I find is "2 elected houses? What's the point, don't they just agree?") But surely most if not all Americans know this - you even have government class at school I seem to recall hearing (we don't, btw).

In Britain (the distinction is important since Westminster {errr, that is, the British national government, commonly referred to as Westminster} controls all non-devolved issues of Britain, not just England) we elect the House of Commons (house of lords is a different matter of fugly). The country is divided into constituencies, each of which votes for a single MP. There are (at my last check) 646 constituencies sending MPs to Westminster (this is inclined to change as each government fudges the constituency to favour their party in the next election). Each is voted for in a first past the post system (yay for disenfranchisement! But it's less severe than in the US because each constituency covers a much smaller number of people than the electoral system does).

Come a general election (which is held at the current government's discretion btw, not a mandated date - but it must be within 5 years of the last one) we vote for EVERY constituency and tot up the numbers. The party with the most MPs wins (or, formally, is invited by the Queen to form a government) and their leader is appointed PM (we don't directly elect a PM - it's the leader of the party we elect. Though, naturally, the leader of the party is a MAJOR part of the party's campaign). The PM generally has less power than your President (the Veto system? Ok, no. Seriously no.) and his Deputy (equivalent to your VP, I guess) is a non-entity in the scheme of things - it's not even considered a proper job. At the end of Blair's regime Prescott was actually criticised for ONLY having the job of Deputy PM - because the Deupty is expected to do other things in the cabinet to justify his existence since Deputies do bugger all.

If neither of the 2 main parties has a clear or strong majority, then the Lib Dems normally swoop in to form a coalition with one side or other, easily breaking a tie (until recent years with the Labour DECIMATION of the Tories which, in turn, is looking like the Tories will DECIMATE Labour *sigh*). In fact, even if one party wins by a small majority, if the Lib Dems through their weight strongly behind the mildly minority party, that party will likely form a government simply because them + Lib Dems > maj party.

No wigs in the Commons :). You can see that at question time (try and find some parliamentary question time vids if you can - a debate every wednesday where the PM has to stand there and answer unprepared, off-the-cuff questions thrown at him by any MPs...) though there are strict rules of conduct.

[tanarill.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for everyone, but to graduate high school I was required to take a year of what amounted to government history and citizen responsibility. Given that this was in my freshman year (14 years old) and one of my classmates was increasingly pregnant as the class went on, I'm not entirely sure that last got through.

So you have 646 MPs in your elected house . . . Are constituencies based on land area or census numbers? And by 'fudge the constituencies' you mean try to move the boundaries around, or what? "First past the post," is, I'm afraid, a term I don't get. I know, I'm a silly American. And I must make the objection that the American Founders actually intended a number of Representatives such that there was on for every thirty thousand voting people, which made more sense when America didn't allow women and black people and non-landowning white people to vote.

Each person, no matter where they live, gets to vote for all 646 MPs? That seems . . . cumbersome. Wouldn't the local MP or candidates be more familiar and easier to keep track of than somewhere over 700 MPs throughout the country? (There are balances; vetos can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. This is in theory so that Congress can't keep voting themselves pay raises.) The VP is pretty useless over here too . . . he's a tiebreaker if there's a tie in Senate, and that's pretty much it unless the President resigns or dies or otherwise has to leave office.

Hmm. I like that. I am of the firm opinion that the technology should have moved forward. Both Houses are required to publish their minutes, but in an age of streaming video . . . I mean, is it too much to ask that we can watch our national policy as it is decided? Strict rules of conduct (and lack of rotten tomatoes) aside.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Well you had a class that none of us had :) There is no government class or civics class in the Uk (or wasn't when i was at school, anyway)

At PRESENT we do. The Constituencies are created by the government, but are generally of roughly equal population (VERY roughly) so a city will have more, small consituencies while a rural stretch of villages will have less, big constituencies. Governments change the number of constituencies and their borders.

"First past the post" basically means the majority of votes win the constituency, with no relevence for what minority parties managed (so if Labour won a constituency by 2% or 40% both count the same)

One of the eternal culture gaps between US and UK I think is the almost religious devotion Americans seem to give the words of the founders - sure that's what the founders INTENDED, but the founders have all been in their graves for a fair while now - what is needed TODAY?

Nooooo, you only vote for your LOCAL MP. Each person votes for one MP - the MP for their constituency.

There are balances; vetos can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both Houses

I'm still not sure why one man needs a Veto over what the majority in the House has voted for...

The VP is pretty useless over here too

It just seems odd that a dual ticket and the person who is VP seems to be an important part of the election. I don't here "Bush" I hear "Bush/Cheny" for example - and it applies across the parties. I've heard people debate for hours on who Obama and Mccain will choose as VPs but in the UK who the Deputy will be is the least of our concerns compared to the rest of the cabinet


I like it because it means the PM has to KNOW every current issue and his party's position on them (and you have lots of question times for cabinet ministers not just the PM) and can't just rely on stock phrases, teleprompters and pre-written speaches.

[tanarill.livejournal.com]

I like that, really I do. And you can add constituencies based on an increasing population, or moving population, without in any way dealing with the . . . provincial (is that the word?) governments, because the local governments don't even deal with the national. Whereas here everything has to deal with imaginary lines on the ground.

Yup, like most do here. I don't like it, and states that use an "electoral vote awarded in proportion to votes" work fine, but both parties tend to object strenuously to anyone suggesting a change because then they'd (gasp) have to have the math skills of a sixth-grader.

A lot more Representatives. At some point (and I'd have to some fact checking), someone said "Okay, we have enough Representatives. We will no longer add them on a population basis, but divide existing ones up based on census numbers." I mean, the whole point of having one Representative for 30,000 voters was to adequately represent them. The thing is that with the same ration today the House of Representatives would be around ten thousand people, which is too large and cumbersome, in my opinion. But a ratio like 1:300,000 would result in a House of around 1,000, which is small enough to work but large enough to more adequately represent. I mean, not very adequately, but better than we have now.

Because Congress keeps voting for stupid things. A lot. This (understandably) bothers a lot of people, and someone has to be able to say, "No, that's stupid," and bring Congress to their collective senses. It's supposed to keep things like the Patriot Act from being passed . . . but the Shrub is a terrible president, so of course it passed anyway.

I'm honestly not sure why this should be. The president is elected and then we never hear about the VP again, unless he has to cast a tiebreaking vote in Senate.

Good. I hate Bush, and maybe if he had to orate without prepared speeches on a regular basis people would have realized what a total fucking moron he is an not reelected him. Of course, this is America, so I can't get my hopes to high -_-