Announcement

**Sprayber** · June 21, 2002, 15:08

A country should pick a system that best suits it not what the prevailing trends are. Liberia has, or had, a constitution like that of the US but it didn't matter much when some of the poeple there discarded it. Like I have been saying all along, do what is in the best interest of your country. Don't rely on the US or anyone else to say "here, use this system. It is best for you" And that is exactly what we should do.

**Imran Siddiqui** · June 21, 2002, 15:08

State's right? Correct me if I have missed the meaning of the word but isn't that kind of pointless if the country isn't a federation?

Exactly what I thought

. Ned, unfortunetly, believes every country is like the US.

And Mexico has very close similarities to our Constitution. Differences include proportial representation and 1/3 of Senators are elected nation-wide, but they do have some federalism and even an electoral college.

**Imran Siddiqui** · June 21, 2002, 15:11

Like I have been saying all along, do what is in the best interest of your country. Don't rely on the US or anyone else to say "here, use this system. It is best for you" And that is exactly what we should do.

How does that fit in a world that is becoming increasingly smaller and smaller, where multinational corporations don't care which country they are in? Where the world is being more and more homogenized in terms of culture and ideals because of the closing in of the world. The European nations already realized this, hence the EU. The rest of the world will soon follow in joining together, I bet.

**Kropotkin** · June 21, 2002, 15:12

And why should other countries introduce a electoral college? It might have been a good idea back then but today it's more or less pointless and also runs the risk of "corrupting" the results of the elections.

**Sprayber** · June 21, 2002, 15:16

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Like I have been saying all along, do what is in the best interest of your country. Don't rely on the US or anyone else to say "here, use this system. It is best for you" And that is exactly what we should do.

How does that fit in a world that is becoming increasingly smaller and smaller, where multinational corporations don't care which country they are in? Where the world is being more and more homogenized in terms of culture and ideals because of the closing in of the world. The European nations already realized this, hence the EU. The rest of the world will soon follow in joining together, I bet.

Do you think countries should be forced into accepting this? If you seem to think that the world is going in this direction then you should allow them to come to that conclusion on their own. The EU had their reasons for the forming the Union that they did. Apparently though the UK at least seems to think that intergratioin isn't all that since they balked on the Euro. But I suppose you think the Govermnment there should do it anyway regardless of what the people want. After all the leaders know best right. The people are really just an annoying detail.

**Ming** · June 21, 2002, 15:25

Originally posted by Kropotkin
and also runs the risk of "corrupting" the results of the elections.

First... I think we should do away with the Electoral College and go to a country wide popular vote.

But after saying that...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The electoral system is the system we use now. How does it run the risk of corrupting itself? If you are implying that it provides different results than a popular vote system, you are correct. But that's not the rules we use here, so it's not "corrupting" anything.

**Sprayber** · June 21, 2002, 15:27

Originally posted by Ming

First... I think we should do away with the Electoral College and go to a country wide popular vote.

But after saying that...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The electoral system is the system we use now. How does it run the risk of corrupting itself? If you are implying that it provides different results than a popular vote system, you are correct. But that's not the rules we use here, so it's not "corrupting" anything.

Even Ming has joined in on the threadjack.

**Ming** · June 21, 2002, 15:29

Originally posted by Sprayber
Even Ming has joined in on the threadjack.

Darn right I have... and a few people should be very happy. Because the next person that throws out a personal insult in this tread will be toast.

So I recommend people chill and either stay on topic or not... but no more insults...

**Kropotkin** · June 21, 2002, 15:31

I do think it's a lot of for fuzz for something that's quite simple. As iirc two states uses other systems than the rest it's also not totally concistent.

**Ned** · June 21, 2002, 15:32

Imran, I don't want to get into a discussion of our constitution, but if we are trying to spread "American" doctrine, what is it if its is not that? What we are is embodied in our constitution. If you start taking parts and pieces away and say that this "part" is what American truly stands for, then I do not agree.

**Sprayber** · June 21, 2002, 15:32

Originally posted by Ming

Darn right I have... and a few people should be very happy. Because the next person that throws out a personal insult in this tread will be toast.

So I recommend people chill and either stay on topic or not... but no more insults...

good thing that isn't retroactive.

**OneFootInTheGrave** · June 21, 2002, 15:34

Originally posted by Ming

First... I think we should do away with the Electoral College and go to a country wide popular vote.

But after saying that...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The electoral system is the system we use now. How does it run the risk of corrupting itself? If you are implying that it provides different results than a popular vote system, you are correct. But that's not the rules we use here, so it's not "corrupting" anything.

well a referral to a situation USA was in the last elections... a close tie can happen in a state with the total amount of people in the country being 20 times or more higher a similar tie is much less likely to happen.

**Imran Siddiqui** · June 21, 2002, 15:34

Do you think countries should be forced into accepting this? If you seem to think that the world is going in this direction then you should allow them to come to that conclusion on their own. The EU had their reasons for the forming the Union that they did. Apparently though the UK at least seems to think that intergratioin isn't all that since they balked on the Euro. But I suppose you think the Govermnment there should do it anyway regardless of what the people want. After all the leaders know best right. The people are really just an annoying detail.

Countries are ALREADY forced into accepting this. Look at globalization. Countries in the 3rd World don't have a choice, they MUST liberalize or else they won't succeed.

Yes, countries can come to that conclusion on their own, but I don't want to see my country left behind. I want my state to be at the forefront, so it helps to dictate the terms, instead of coming late to the party so it has to follow what others have made. We SHOULD have a say in this new world order, but if we close up and defend 'our interests', we won't. And then when we are forced to join, because of the overwhelming tide, we will be joining something that we haven't been instrumental in creating.

And my idea of Democratic Republic is that the representatives should do what they believe is best for the country, not simply to listen to the whims of the uninformed electorate.

**Ming** · June 21, 2002, 15:36

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I do think it's a lot of for fuzz for something that's quite simple. As iirc two states uses other systems than the rest it's also not totally concistent.

Again... I don't agree with the system... but, that's the whole point... the power of the states in our Union. It's not meant to be consistent... It gives each state the right to make their own determination.

**Imran Siddiqui** · June 21, 2002, 15:37

Imran, I don't want to get into a discussion of our constitution, but if we are trying to spread "American" doctrine, what is it if its is not that? What we are is embodied in our constitution.

Then don't agree. But spreading the American doctrine is the idea of human rights, democratic republic, respect for basic freedoms of speech and religion. Our Constitution embodies those, but states do not have to accept the entirty of the Constitution to suscribe to the American doctrine.

Announcement

European Hypocracy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment