Conference back40::soapbox

Who serves during the interim?

    we should remove all the gold fringe from flags first!

    They do that in some other countries -- forget which one(s) -- heard
    about it on NPR.
    
    Sure would change American Politics.
    
    First thing I would do right before a presidential election is have my
    name legally changed to NOA, and then I'd be president for sure... :-)
    

    A former colleague offered a variation in N.O.A. that I like even
    better.
    
    Have a FOR lever and an AGAINST lever for each candidate.  To win, a
    candidate must score more than half of the FOR votes, and fewer than
    half of the AGAINST votes.
    
    Failing a winner, scrap all candidates for the office in question and
    have a new election with none of the scrapped candidates in 90 days. 
    In the interim, the incumbent remains in office; this is to encourage
    those who are serious about knocking said incumbent out to come up with
    a viable candidate instead of merely offering the lesser of two evils.

I like it.

Too bad, like my capital punishment philosophy, we'll never see it happen.

    >Who serves during the interim?
    
    No one. We would soon find out that we don't any of them.

         No, wouldn't work. Too chaotic. And how would a candidate get
    electoral votes? And what about if several candidates scored more than
    half the FOR votes? 

> And how would a candidate get electoral votes?

I think the idea was that it's not required.

> And what about if several candidates scored more than half the FOR votes? 

Huh? You currently get to "select one" for the office of prez. The proposed
system, if I understand it properly, allows you to still cast ONE vote, either
FOR a candidate you favor, or AGAINST one you oppose. How can more than one 
candidate get more than half under such a system?

         The way I understood it, you would get to vote FOR or AGAINST each
    individual candidate. The system sounded just a bit too simplistic. 

How would that differ from simply statistically reinterpreting the results 
of the current process?

      I should offer my own thoughts since I posted this!
    
      I haven't thought about any detailed (or not so detailed)
      logistics such as "Who do we have in the interim?"
    
      My basic thought is that we should have the right and the
      power (not merely the *formality*) to voice disapproval if
      that is how we really feel.
    
      If a person honestly evaluates all major candidates and 
      feels that they are unfit for office, he should not be left
      with a nonvote.  He should have the power to elect the non-
      votee.  Let them see how unappreciated the candidates are 
      if that is really how they are seen.
    
    						Tony

         Here's another basic thought: since the media basically elects the
    candidate, maybe there should be some sort of way to limit their
    participation. 

    Is this like "Brewsters Millions" None Of the Above philosophy?

>         Here's another basic thought: since the media basically elects the
>    candidate, maybe there should be some sort of way to limit their
>    participation. 

There already is, but first you need to convince the sheep to ignore them.

    BaaAAaaaaAAAaaaa   BaaaAAAAaaaAAaaa

NOA... ya, just what need to do. lengthen the amount time we afford
these politicians to act like idiots and spend more campaign money.

maybe the answer is responsible voting in the lower ranks first.

    I'm still a fan of the single transferable vote system over the NOA.
    reason being that the NOA does not necessarily fuel change in the
    type of candidate.  The STV also results in less spending and is
    faster then going through the nomination and electioneering process for
    a secon time - as Chip pointed out.   Trouble is, there seems to be a
    direct relationship between voting methodologies and political parties. 
    Countries that use proportional representation through the STV system
    generally tend to have many smaller parties, wheras those with the
    "first past the post" system tend to have two large parties and a few
    fringe parties.   Changing the voting system in the US might have
    a similar effect, strengthening the base for Libertarianism and other
    currently minor parties. 
        

    
    FYI  Different electoral systems:
    
    Electoral systems
    
    Hundreds of different types of voting systems are available, and to any
    one theme can be added a number of variations, gender quotas, top-up
    systems, and so forth. In other words, if society decides it wants to
    have a particular type of electoral system - one which favours only the
    bigger parties, or one which is proportional to x% and gender proofed
    at y% - it can easily be arranged. Or again, if society wants to be a
    little more sophisticated, it can have a two-tier system, electing some
    representatives in small constituencies, because that favours local
    contact, and some in big constituencies, which gives better
    proportionality.
    
    So let us look back awhile, if but to regret the fact that present
    voting systems have tended to make the democratic system
    confrontational. Where it all first started, in the 'good' old days in
    Greece, certain democratic posts were shared by lot, just as we try to
    share jury service. Nowadays, though, in most so-called democracies,
    the voting system has become a contest in which the success of any one
    candidate is dependent on the votes of only a certain number of
    persons, and what the others think about that candidate (who may
    nevertheless be on the verge of becoming their representative) is
    apparently of no concern.
    
    (It must be stressed that there are some less confrontational systems
    in existence; unfortunately, however, most of these are not (yet) in
    use and for some reason they are rarely considered).
    
    Current systems can be divided into those which operate in single-seat
    constituencies, and those which operate in multi-member constituencies.
    Some of the latter are still majoritarian, while others are
    proportional, to lesser or greater degree. There are lots of PR List
    systems, some (which we'll call type A) allow the voter only to vote
    for one particular party; some (type B) allow the voter to vote for any
    one candidate of only one party; some again let the voter vote across
    party, if he/she wants to, (type C); and on top off all that, many of
    the type B variety are two-tier systems, i.e., an election consisting
    of two parts, the first being biased towards the bigger parties
    perhaps, the second then to ensure overall proportionality. 
    
    Finally, there is PR-STV and a couple of variations on PR-STV. Of all
    the PR systems, only some allow the voter a degree of pluralism, that
    is, the chance to vote for more than one person/party. 
    
    Let us now, therefore, have a look at what is on offer, before
    describing each in turn. In the table below, the 'effective threshold'
    is the probable average minimum percentage level of support required to
    gain representation.
    
    First-past-the-post
    
    The voter writes 'X' opposite the candidate/party of his/her choice,
    and the winner is the candidate with the greatest number of votes. This
    might be a majority, but it might just be the largest minority. In a
    Scottish constituency, for example, where Tory, Labour, Liberal and SNP
    may all be on a par, the winner might get only 28% while the three
    losers each get 24%. 
    
    Additional Member System
    
    This is a two-tier system; the first tier is like the above UK system,
    and in the other tier, each voter has a second vote; then, in the
    count, if the first vote leads to an unproportional result (as will
    invariably be the case), this second regional or list will redress the
    balance, subject (in Germany) to a legal threshold of 5% (because they
    did not want any communists to get in). 
    
    Alternative Vote
    
    The voter votes 1, 2, 3..., as in PR-STV, and candidates are eliminated
    and their votes transferred, until the winner has at least 50% + 1 of
    the valid vote. It is a great improvement on first-past-the-post; it
    can still be divisive, however, and though to a lesser extent, it too
    can sometimes produce some very unfair results. 
    
    PR List (type A)
    
    Each party displays its list of candidates, but the voter votes only
    for the party. The constituency(ies) may be national (or regional).
    Parties receive seats in direct proportion to the number of votes
    obtained, and seats are awarded to the top names on the list, in
    sequence. The disadvantage is that it leaves all the power in the hands
    of the party political machine; secondly, it does not allow any
    independents to stand. 
    
    PR List (type B)
    
    This is like the above, except the voter may now vote for a particular
    candidate from the list of his/her chosen party. Each party's share of
    seats will again depend on its share of the valid vote, but seats shall
    be awarded according to the most popular candidates. The system is very
    proportional, especially in the Netherlands, for example, where the
    entire country is the one constituency. You'll be lucky, though, if
    your 'local' representative is nearby. Furthermore, this system again
    favours the political parties, and not the independents. 
    
    PR List (type B) two-tier
    
    As above, but the voter votes twice, on two separate lists, the one in
    a small constituency, the other in a large one. Your local
    representative is now indeed local, and yet the system overall is still
    very proportional. 
    
    PR List (type C)
    
    Here the voter has as many votes in the constituency as there are seats
    to be won in that constituency, and he/she may even give two of those
    votes to a favourite candidate. It tends to be fairly proportional but
    not a little erratic. 
    
    PR-STV
    
    This is the 1, 2, 3... system used in Ireland, north and south, usually
    in multi-member constituencies of from 3-7 members, though it can be
    more. The smaller the number, the less proportional the system; hence
    all the furore when Fianna Fail tried to change the constituency
    boundaries. The advantage is that it guarantees minority representation
    to any group big enough. The disadvantages are twofold: it is very
    complicated to count and towards the end of a close contest, victory
    may sometimes depend on the most nebulous of factors; also, he/she who
    is the second favourite of everybody but the first of none will get a
    first round score of 0 and may well be eliminated. 
    
    PR-STV + x% top-up
    
    This is a two-tier system; PR-STV favours only the bigger parties, and
    top-up from very large constituencies helps to redress this imbalance.
    The percentage 'x' should be the same numerical sum as the average
    quota in the average PR-STV constituency. 
    
    Preferendum
    
    The preferendum asks the voter to cast preference points for all the
    candidates on the ballot paper, and the success of any one candidate in
    the count depends on the opinions of all voters. The disadvantage is
    that it is not proportional; it is an ideal system but suitable only
    for ideal societies. 
    
    Quota Preference Score
    
    This is a combination of PR-STV and the preferendum, which eliminates
    the disadvantages of both. Voters vote 1, 2, 3... and are encouraged to
    do so all the way; any candidate reaching the quota is elected; then
    any pair of candidates reaching the quota is chosen, and the one from
    that pair with the higher preferendum score is elected. It is an
    excellent system, which perhaps explains why it has never been used. 
    
    Matrix vote
    
    Mention must also be made of the matrix vote, a logical development of
    pluralism for use in the elected chamber.The voter, usually an elected
    representative, moves from a linear display of his/her opinions, into a
    tabular form. If a parliament is electing its government, for example,
    each MP or TD could choose, in an order of preference, those whom
    he/she wishes to see in which particular cabinet posts. It is, to quote
    the jargon, a 'win-win' form of election, and ideally suited to a
    power-sharing administration. 
    
                                  

    
      (1) How "confrontational" a system should be is, of course, a
         matter of opinion.  Depends what you are trying to do.
    
      (2) My experience with complexity in voting (vote for up to 3
         members of the planning board from this list of 7) is in
         "non-partisan" town elections, where party is not shown.
         It's well-suited to smaller size constituencies, but in
         the USA, results in lower turnout (already very low), and
         more fouled ballots.
    
      (3) Requiring a runoff till somebody gets 50% in single-candidate
         situations, as in the Boston mayoralty or Russian president
         elections, seems sound.
    
      (4) The American presidential election is unique, because it is
         designed to discourage "regional" candidates by the "electoral"
         system.  You get nothing for winning Texas by a landslide.  This
         had very important consequences for American history.  Don't
         hold your breath waiting for it to change.
    
       bb

>    Have a FOR lever and an AGAINST lever for each candidate.  To win, a
>    candidate must score more than half of the FOR votes, and fewer than
>    half of the AGAINST votes.

This reminds me of the time whilest going to Va Tech. They let the
students vote on the musical schedule one year. You could vote for the
one you wanted to see most and the one you wanted to see least.

John Denver won both in landslides.

TTom

    Them Yoorpeans have been "trying things" for upwards of 2000 years. 
    The oldest political systems the meet the technical definition of
    "democracy" (apart from Greek states) are Iceland and Isle of Man with
    democratic Parliamentary systems that date back about 900 years.  
    
    What is intersting about the European post war upheaval is that no
    state decided to adopt the system operated in Britain and the US.
    Most countries gaining independence from colonial masters such as
    Britain also chose to adopt different systems - Australia, for
    example has compulsory voting. 
    
    In the second wave of experimentation, the break up of Eastern Europe,
    no country has yet to choose the simple "first past the post" system.
      

How can you have a real democracy on a place called Isle of Man?

    Well, of course you don't let wimmin vote at first until they've
    marched to the White House and been clubbed around a bit or thrown
    themselves under the King's race horse.  But those Damn' Yoorpeons
    experimented with it and kind of opened the floodgates. 

    
      Another one that interests me is the "ethnic veto" or "guaranteed
     ethnic representation" concept you see in places with histories of
     racial or cultural history or even civil wars.  South Africa,
     Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.  One "solution" is gerrymandering as in the
     guaranteed black districts in the US Congress.  The boundaries of
     Quebec.  And so forth.  The trouble with that idea is, it's just
     a short step to partition, as in India-Pakistan, Israel-PLO.  How
     has South Africa done this ?  I haven't followed their system, but
     I know the white minority is guaranteed some voice, at least.
    
      bb

    I thought you liked Switzerland?  Boringly clean, efficient,
    multicultural, fair, multilingual, uncontroversial,  etc, etc.  Or
    there's politically exciting Belgium and controversial Holland.
    Both countries are multicultural and seem to function fairly well.
    I hear the mountaineering in Holland is about as stimulating as the
    politics.

    
      If you'd pay my fare, I'd be im Schweiz tomorrow.  I have no
     idea what their politics is, except they've been a Republic
     for a long time, never been allies with anybody, refuse UN
     membership, and are one of the richest countries on the planet,
     around double US per capita gdp.  I do recall they are federal,
     based on cantons.  I've been in numerous so-called multilingual
     and multicultural places, and Switzerland is BY FAR the most
     successful.  Some of the others are the worst, poorest, and most
     dangerous places in the world.  Altogether, I'd still say that
     multiculturalism is mostly a negative, conceding the Swiss exception.
    
      bb

Switzerland is about as multicultural as the dinner I had last night.

I.E., not very multicultural at all.  Three and a half languages, one culture.

/john

/john, what did you have for dinner last night?  Please account for every
last penny spent on it.

Yeah, but what didja have for dinner?

    
    well, the Swiss do make good army knives. Cheese ain't bad either.

        re: .24

    Black South Africans were never given the vote. This is why the
    National Party lead by Botha then De Klerk got in. The whites were
    really the only people allowed to vote. The national Party was less
    extreme than the Conservative Party, and the AWB were never really
    main stream political players. 

    When Mandela was released, and Apartheid was denounced, it was decided
    by De Klerk that an election was needed. This was not really his
    decision, it was made by the rulers of the UK and the US. Blacks were
    then given the vote. 

    Because blacks out number the whites by about 30 to one, it was never
    going to to be a white party that got in. The blacks only really had
    one candidate. Although Mandela is Xhosa, and Buthelezi is Zulu, the
    Zulus has to vote with the majority. There was a lot of threats as to
    who should vote for who. The ANC got in because most of the blacks, (11
    different tribes) had no candidate for there own tribe. Mandela made a
    lot of attractive promises that he is now realising, along with the
    rest country, that he has no way of achieving. 
    
    The present government is an interim governement, with the National
    Party leader, (de Klerk), as acting Deputy President. It was felt that
    the ANC were not experienced enough to run a country like South Africa.
    

Turkey Schnitzel
French fries
and a Tiramisu.

re .30:

What, nothing Romansch?

That's why I said "about" as multicultural.

    Yeah, heard that one before John.  Everyone slams multiculturalism
    while simultaneously claiming to be Irish-American or Italian-American.
    Usually without even the half-language and based on a two week
    vacation.

 Z   Yeah, heard that one before John.  Everyone slams multiculturalism
 Z   while simultaneously claiming to be Irish-American or Italian-American.
 Z   Usually without even the half-language and based on a two week
 Z   vacation.
    
    Yes...and isn't it the most absurd, immature behavior an adult can
    display....HEY...I'M ITALIAN....YOU PICK ON MY PEOPLE......  
    
    Grow up.
                                                               

The word-du-jour "multiculturalism" has nothing to do with the situation
in Switzerland or in a million American families with Irish wives and
Italian husbands and vice versa.

You won't find "multiculturalism" (as touted by its proponents) in Switzerland.

Not at all.

/john

    
      I'm sorry to start the "multiculturalism" rathole, but it
     seems to me to be relevant to the topic.  Like it or not, many
     people are members of numerical minorities in their countries.
     Many voting patterns are ethnic.  If the final election is
     between opponents both from the cultural majority, there might
     be a tendency for minority voters to vote "NOA", no matter what
     the views or qualifications of the candidates.  Colin brought up
     the fact that there are lots of ways to do elections, which is
     true.  Given a major role for ethnicity, for better or worse,
     how have other countries managed the inevitable cultural conflicts ?
     Could the US better design its system in view of its ethnicity ?
     The Congress, the SCOTUS, and the states are all struggling with
     this.  It matters.  Consider the ethnic gyrations surrounding the
     Boston school committee over the past few decades for example.
    
      bb

    .20
    
    > John Denver won both in landslides.
    
    By the principle set up in my .4, Denver would, by garnering more than
    half of the AGAINST votes, not be eligible to appear.

Luckily for us, Denver din't appear.

    I think the concept of an N.O.A. vote is very appealing.  However, I
    think we could achieve a much better system by just changing the
    primary system.
    
    Both parties now have, basically, a winner-take-all primary and that
    makes an early leader tough to stop.  It would be better to have the
    primaries as an inclusive process whereby you must gather acertain
    percentage i.e., 5%/10% of the votes cast in order to be considered for
    the party convention where a candidate would actually be selected.
    
    This would allow for a candidate to do poorly in some early primaries,
    or raise the money necessary, etc to actually get attention.  this
    would also allow for a situation like now, where people are not really
    happy with Dole to select a different candidate at the convention.
    
    As far as the N.O.A. option, if no one gets at least 50% of the votes
    cast the Congress elects an interim President and a new candidate could
    be selected form the others entered at the convention or have another
    "primary" to select a different candidate.
    
    Either way I think the systme needs to be changed to get a better mix
    of prospective candidates.
    

    .38
    
    Part of my interest in PR/STV stems from this precise issue.
    In countries with PR/STV you tend to get a multiplicity of parties.
    Large parties fragment and small parties are born.  The process favours
    the establishment of parties that appeal to national and cultural
    sentiments (as well as other ideological viewpoints, hence the presence
    of "greens" and even communists in some systems).  Fragmented
    political groups tend to coalesce around major issues and form alliances
    to create governments, as has been done in Israel recently.
    If a group feels that they are represented, they tend to have faith in
    and participate in the system, allowing for peaceful coexistence
    with the passage of time. 
    
    Perhaps gerrymandering could be viewed as a localized imposition of
    proportional representation that has served its purpose in that people
    are now engaged in the political process at least.  Part of their
    engagement comes from having a bit of faith in the system.  Like all
    ideas, it has run out of steam and the effort to engage people needs
    a different impetus such as controlling the political funding that
    favours vested interests.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that special interests are way too
    much in control of our system.  Depending on what you read, you can be
    fairly well convinced that ordinary individual citizens have almost no
    representation left in our own government, because special interests,
    using expert tools, are able to manipulate the system to get whatever
    money can buy.
    
    We need to find some way for the ordinary citizen to wield as much
    power as a million dollars.  Then we will have a system that represents
    the people of this country rather than the big corporations, moneyed
    foreign interests, etc.

    1.  Political survey polls and reporting of such, banned forever.
    
    2.  National Primary Day, all parties, 24 hours long; no reporting
        of interim results until voting period is over; no exit polls.
    
    3.  None of the Above available on all ballots, all offices.
    
    4.  November Election Day, also 24 hours long, no reporting of
        results or "trends" until polls closed, no exit polling.
    
    5.  Direct vote, no silly Electoral College (e.g., my vote in
        Massachusetts has almost always been meaningless; let's
        change this).
    
    Chris

So screw the freedom of the press?

If'n your vote is swayed by some idiot on CBS or the like, ya got some
problems in any case.

TTom

    
    I really like #2. a national primary day.
    
    
    ej

    .45
    
    Freedom of the press does not relieve them of the responsibility to
    exercise proper caution and live up to the freedom they have by
    accepting the responsibility.
    
    Also, apparently you missed the regulation that no results can be
    published or reported until the polls on the West coast close.  Did you
    think the networks et. al., just decided it would be better to start
    their election coverage after the West coast polls closed?
    
    Too many people are swayed by the media, even if it's unconcious.
    
    Perfect example, what if Dole suddenly started pulling great #s in
    early results on the East coast.  there are a lot of people who would
    change their vote since it looked like Dole actually was doing well.
    
    BTW, I believe this restriction was put in sometime in the 80s, just
    when Reagan was knocking the socks off of his opponents.
    

>    Freedom of the press does not relieve them of the responsibility to

Agreed.

However, I don't support restricting the freedom of press just because
people do whatever some idjit on the boob tube tells 'em.

>    Perfect example, what if Dole suddenly started pulling great #s in
>    early results on the East coast.  there are a lot of people who would
>    change their vote since it looked like Dole actually was doing well.

I'd wanna hear about it. 

Sounds like you have a very low opinion of a lot of people.

TTom

    
>>>>Sounds like you have a very low opinion of a lot of people.
    
    
    
    After the last few political contests, I agree.
    
    ej

    .48
    
    Apparently there are a lot of people who are swayed by the talking
    heads.  The excuse given at the time the restriction was imposed about
    reporting voting trends and results was that people wanted to back a
    winner.  That was what was given as the excuse at the time.
    
    As people on the West Coast and Mountain States got the results of the
    East and Central they were more apt to vote for the apparent winner so
    that ehy weren't voting for a loser.
    
    This is not my opinion.  this is what was reported by the very media
    that was causing the results.
    
    So if there are a lot of idiots out there that are swayed by the
    results, it's not my opinion, it apparently is fact.
    

I have no doubt that people are stupid enough to listen to about anybody
and do whatever they say.

All I'm saying is it aint the fault of the press.

Let's say that the press caint say anything until the results are
official. These same lamebrains will be voting for some other mindless
reason like Rush or somebody told 'em to. Or Larry King. Or Barbara
Streisand...

> I have no doubt that people are stupid enough to listen to about anybody
> and do whatever they say.
> 
> All I'm saying is it aint the fault of the press.
    
    They're *pushers*.  They're fully aware of the cognitive and
    analytical weaknesses of most people, and they've made a science
    out of exploiting and manipulating these mental shortcomings.
    
    Chris

Like I said, you got a much lower opinion of people than I do.

BTW, how do you explain the press allowing Ronald Reagan to be elected?
Or George Bush? Since the biased press apparently controls the mindless
masses, they musta been asleep at the switch for a couple of elections,
eh?

TTom

    It wasn't only that east coast poll news swayed the votes of those in
    the west, it was that once the press had reported a landslide victory
    for some candidate in all the eastern states, the people in the western
    states wouldn't even bother to go vote, perceiving that the election
    was already over so why bother.
    
    I agree that the press should be kept at bay until west coast polls are
    closed.  Anything we can do to encourage people to vote and to vote
    their own minds will only make it a more representative democracy.

>    ... Anything we can do to encourage people to vote and to vote
>    their own minds will only make it a more representative democracy.

Ditto.

However, the thesis is that they're essential stupid and incapable of
making any kinda decision on their own so presumably they'll only be
swayed by another collection of parasites and ax-grinders.

TTom

    I don't think people are stupid, but I do think they are easily swayed,
    both by a desire to vote for a winner and by feelings of helplessness
    and hopelessness that can be triggered easily by believing the contest
    has already been won.
    
    I think disallowing the press to broadcast east coast results to the
    west coast before polls close is similar in scope to the restriction on
    free speech of not allowing someone to scream "Fire!" in a crowded
    theater.  A very good tradeoff of lots of gain in one freedom against 
    a little loss in another.
    
    Then too, it feels good to say no to the press once in a while.  :-)

>    Then too, it feels good to say no to the press once in a while.  :-)

I here ya. It's hard arguing for the rights of a group of lowlifes but
unfortunately, their rights are ours.

But what the hey, I din't write it. I just support it.

Same for religion. It's way up there on the list of capitalizing on the
"easily swayed". I support there rights, too.

TTom

    RE; .44
    
    You got it right lad.
    
    I totally agree, specially about the no reporting of interim results
    or exit polls; not because I would be swayed by them but because
    I am sick of meaningless news flashes and updates.  Elections are
    just an excuse for the media to OD on their own hype.
    
    However, the NOA option does have me concerned about the cost of
    elections.  Elections are not cheap and if we reject the array of 
    candidates and have to do it all again, that could result in big bucks.

    <--- Back from your long lunch I see.

    
    	She must be taking a coffee break.
    

    .55
    
    So you don't think that the press has the ability to affect people's
    opinions of issues, whether they are based on facts or not.  If that's
    the case then please explain why so many people think that the
    Republicans were going to starve children by eleiminating the school
    lunch program.  A lie, but reported that way.  Why do you think so many
    people think the Republicans were going to slash and cut Medicaxx.  A
    lie, but reported that way.  Why do you think that many people think
    Republicans are racists and sexists.  A lie, but reported that way.
    
    There are many other examples of a biased press that can be
    idenitified, but then there's freedom of the press and no attempt to
    make them accountable should be tolerated.  Even if they abuse their
    rights and trample on other's rights in the process, that's Ok.  Just
    don't tell the press they have limits.
    

    Why even bother to vote if there is so much apathy?   If the 2 party 
    system is producing so many NOA types then maybe the Reps and Demos
    need to start fostering better candidates.

Sorry I asked a question first that's gone unaswered: The press convinces
ever one how bad the Republicans are yet Reagan and Bush won. How?

Obviously, the press affects opinions. That's their job. What you seem to
be saying is that we have to protect the mentally challenged masses from
this onslaught.

As for some of your details, I don't know anyone who thinks the 'Pubs are
gonna starve children. As for welfare, they seem to court the rich and
want no part of the poor. 

I'll leave the sexist and racist part to others. FWIW, I don't share that
opinion at least not to any extent that they're any better or worse than
say Democrats, Baptists or Digital managers.

TTOm

    .63
    
    The press tried to stop Reagan by painting him a a radical extremeist
    who was going to plunge us into WWIII.  Unfortunately he was running
    against Carter who allowed our citizens to be held hostage for over a
    year.  the message didn't play well.  Also Reagan did an incredible job
    in the televised debates.  Reagan was in his element and no amount of
    spin was going to reverse his performance.  People to this day still
    remeber his, "Now there you go again." line.  It wasn't that the press
    didn't try, they just weren't very able to scare the folks very well.
    
    As for Bush, he trailed Dukakis until the Tank Helmet screw-up.  At
    that point peopel began to feel that Dukakis was a bit of a jerk and
    looked silly.  The press still pushed by fully reporting and running
    editorials in support of Foley's stupid remarks about Bush's
    involvement with an October surprise.  As was said at the time.  "just
    because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean that we don't need to
    investigate.  As a matter of fact that is exactly why we need to
    investigate, because there isn't any evidence."  the press ran with
    this for a long time and raised it several times after it died.
    
    If it wasn't for the tank picture, I'm not sure Bush would have won.
    
    Also your statement about the Republicans not caring much about poor
    people reflect how you perceive the facts.  You try to couch what you
    say but your bias shows through quite clearly.  Also, just look through
    the notes here and see how many times the Democrat mantra of
    mean-spirited, cold-hearted, racist, bigots get used.  These come
    directly from the Democrat playbook and reported in the media.  And you
    want to say that it doesn't affect people, even when the facts are 100%
    wrong.
    
    Yeah, right.
    

re: Reagan

So it's possible to win the presidency despite the mind controlling grip
of the press.

As for the Pubs and the poor, poor choice of words and a cheap shot. I
don't subscribe to that.

A fairer sentence would have been, "As for welfare, they seem to care
more for the rich than the poor."

TTom

    One of my favorite example of how the press can influence poeple's
    thinking is the divorce rate.
    
    A few years ago some reporter picked up one of those almanacs you get
    in bookstores and saw that in the previous year there had been 
    x million marriages and x/2 million divorces.
    
    Right away he leaped to the conclusion that 1 our of every 2 marriages
    ends in divorce and published that in his paper.  The rest of the media
    picked it up and so did the politicians, and now everyone pretty much
    believes it.
    
    The fact that the x marriages all happened in one year, but the x/2
    divorces were from marriages that happened over many many years, and
    that they therefore could not be compared directly, apparently escaped
    everyone's notice.
    
    The journalist who told this story on a radio talk show a few years
    back said he dug into the US Dept of Human Resources statistical
    archives and discovered that in fact no more than about 10% of
    marriages end for any reason other than the death of one partner.
    
    While he was there he also looked at their figures for smoking related
    illness and discovered that fewer than 10% of smokers were reported to
    have any diseases related to smoking, somewhat contrary once again to
    popular belief.
    
    The press sells media, the politicians sell emotion to get votes, and
    the rest of us are left to ourselves to sort out truth from fiction.

    .65
    
    Still miss the point, huh?  If the press is to have freedom then they
    need to exercise the responsibility associated with it.  They are to
    report the news and not try to create the news nor push a particular
    agenda unless specifically identified as an editorial, etc.  Just
    because the press doesn't succeed, doesn't mean that they don't try. 
    They hould not be allowed to try and that's the issue.
    
    Also, once agian you state a non-fact that Republicans care more about
    the rich than the poor.  Please identify where you get this
    information.  I have never seen nor heard any Republican or
    conservative ever make such a statment nor support sucha statement. 
    Republicans do believe that government is too large and it's expansion
    is funded through the taxes on workers.  they believe that there is
    tremendous waste and fraud in government programs and these need to be
    eliminated and the taxpayers should benefit from lower taxes.  If this
    not caring about the poor, then someone has a very distorted view of
    caring.
    

re: press

So you're mad that the press doesn't subscribe to what you think they
oughta be doing?

re: rich and poor

The reference was with regard to welfare. Let me try to spell it out for
you. Take one of the more powerful Pubs, Jesse Helms (please). Compare
what has he done for the poor on welfare and for the rich on welfare.
That should help you out.

FWIW, I don't subscribe to anything that says the republicans are any
better or worse than the democrats. There's enough bad to go around for
all of 'em.

TTom

    .68
    
    NO, I don't care whether the press ascribes to my views or not.  What I
    object to is members of the press and others proclaiming Freedom of the
    Press and ignoring any responisibility that goes with that freedom. 
    Every freedom has a responsibility that goes with it, if you can't
    or won't accept the responsibility then don't accept the freedom.  For
    point of reference, see freedom of speech and libel and endangerment.
    
    Once again, you point to a particular person who may or may not have
    taken a particular position on an issue.  This does not, by any stetch
    of the imagination, mean that the entire group holds the same views. 
    Anyone who believes that the welfare system is fine right now, the only
    thing lacking is more money, is so hopelessly clueless that it isn't
    worth the time to debate it.
    
    If I have to figure out whether it is more productive to pump money
    into a failed welfare system that does more harm than good, or take
    those funds and provide incentives to businesses to hire, train,
    expand, etc, my decision is very straigh forward.  I would hope that
    most people would be of the same opinion.
    

What I don't understand about reactions to the press is the coexistence
of the thought that they're ineffectual but somehow harmful.

I too think that they act irresponsible but I'm willing to have that as
the cost of keeping a basic freedom.

>    Anyone who believes that the welfare system is fine right now, the only

That leaves me out cause I don't believe that. 

And you're last paragraph is exactly what I was talking about concerning
the relative priorities of giving to the rich versus giving to the poor.

TTom

My criticisms of the press are about the same as my criticisms of congress:

Whenever anything BAD happens, both are in such a rush to get to the bottom
of the matter that they make a successful prosecution of the crime
impossible.  The press by printing everything (and prejudicing everyone);
the congress by holding hearings and passing imunity out like cookies.

The press has the right to know these things.  I want them to know these
things, because if there's something fishy going on, I want someone to be
able to tell me about it.  What I don't want is for them to prejudice
everyone, convict everyone in popular opinion, and generally interfere with
the law enforcement agencies by telling us all everything that'd louse up
the investigation.

As for Congress..  well, they just got no excuse sometimes.

    .70
    
    I never said the press was ineffectual, but I do believe they are
    harmful.  I can cite case after cse where they have been harmful and
    gone far beyond what the purpose of a free press is all about.  Stating
    that you think they are irresponsible but are willing to allow it to
    keep a basic freedom is a real eye-opener.  How many other freedoms are
    you willing to let people exercise irresponsibly i.e., guns, libel,
    etc.
    
    Also, how can you state you oppose the welfare system and then by
    implication state that favoring tax breaks over a failed welfare system
    proves your point.  You got me on that one.
    

Some in here have lambasted the press for they're biased, stupid, out of
touch, etc. That's the direction of the "ineffectual".

>    Also, how can you state you oppose the welfare system and then by
>    implication state that favoring tax breaks over a failed welfare system
>    proves your point.  You got me on that one.

The point proven is who the republicans favor more. Your words expressed
clearly that it's the rich. 

My opinion of the current welfare system is that it would be hard for
anybody to come up with a plan to spend more money and do more harm.
Randomly giving money away without regard to need prolly would help out
more.

The issue however is not favoring tax breaks over a failed welfare
system. The issue is favoring tax breaks over doing something to help
the poor. And the rich get more than tax breaks. Sometimes we just give
'em money.

TTom

    .73
    
    You're still wrong.  I believe the best form of welfare is no welfare. 
    I believe that support an economy that generates enough jobs to provide
    work for those who are willing to work.  A welfare system that corrupts
    self-worth and pays for doing nothing is worse than doing nothing.
    
    I believe more strongly than most who support ht ewelfare state and
    oppose conservatives, in a need to help the poor.  I just don't believe
    giving them money is an answer.  I believe creating jobs in the private
    sector and putting these people to work is the long term answer.
    
    If that means in your world that I suppot the rich over the poor, well
    your just plain wrong.
    

    you're rong, rong, rong!!!

>    ...  I believe the best form of welfare is no welfare. 

So you're against price supports, tax breaks, etc.? How 'bout those
farmers who are paid not to produce their products?

>    I believe more strongly than most who support ht ewelfare state and
>    oppose conservatives, in a need to help the poor.  

Here, here. On the last clause, we agree. Since I don't support the
welfare state or oppose conservatives, I'll leave that alone.

I think the issue at dispute is the word welfare. You seem to limit your
definition to whatever the government does to/for the poor. I include
what it does to/for the rich.

I consider tax breaks and subsidies as welfare to the rich. I'm not
saying they're bad, now. Just that they constitute a large portion of
public funds going to a target group.

TTom

    .76
    
    I gues we have found where we disagree.  I do not see money extorted
    from individuals or corporations as "public funds".  I also don't agree
    with the government taking these "public funds" and doling them out to
    those with the best lobbyists.  The government shouldn't take the money
    in the first place.  This then eliminates the "rich welfare" that you
    see as so evil.
    
    If you stick a gun in my face and take my wallet and then give me some
    of my money back, I would hardly see that as any form of welfare. 
    Apparently you have bought into the concept of all money belongs to the
    government and if you get anything then you are receiving welfare.
    

When did I ever characterize "rich welfare" as evil?

>    Apparently you have bought into the concept of all money belongs to the
>    government and if you get anything then you are receiving welfare.

No I din't. 

Neither of these are even close to what I think. 

Let's leave the tax system for another debate. If I could afford it, I'd
be a_anarchist. I can't. So I work and pay taxes just like you and just
like you I don't like that part of it very much, either.

I also don't like paying a price support so Jesse Helms can get rich
pandering to the sugar industry.

TTom

I nominate this topic for being the most successful topic to quickly get
off topic.

    Let's talk about something else.

I think None of the Above oughta be on the ballot.

The onliest problem would be if'n N.O.A. would win. It might be a
refreshing change to have one less federal employee. I guess their aint
no VP, neither. Save some more bucks there.

Spread it to Congress and elect N.O.A. to ever seat up for grabs. After
six years, max, they're all gone too.

TTom

    .59, .60
    
    You're both wrong.  I am, figuratively speaking, back from the dead.
    
    Actually, I have just moved from TAY to LKG, and taken two weeks 
    vacation.  Two weeks in the sun, feet splashing in the clear lake
    water.  That's what I call a real coffee break. 

    Perhaps I can talk some of my contemporaries into taking coffee breaks
    at a lake. Being the lazy underachievers we all are, this shouldn't be
    too difficult.

    .83
    
    
    Soooooo! You admit it do you.

    Yeah, in my area we're looking for a few old bats to do all the work so
    we can take afternoons off to play golf...

    
    <--- I knew it!