First, am I correct to assume that Otis on this forum is the same as Frans on the asp.net forums?

Second, do the U.S. presidential debates get broadcast in Holland beyond the basic news clips? Not looking for opinions on Bush, Kerry, the U.S. etc.

Otis = Frans

mattsmith321 wrote:

First, am I correct to assume that Otis on this forum is the same as Frans on the asp.net forums?

Correct

Second, do the U.S. presidential debates get broadcast in Holland beyond the basic news clips? Not looking for opinions on Bush, Kerry, the U.S. etc.

Not live, but we do get a lot of background news on the US elections. It's a little frustrating, as the US president has a lot of influence (together with the congres) on every western country, but inhabitants of these countries can't vote for that president nor congres .

Tendency here in The Netherlands is that the focus is more moving towards the EU and away from the US, that is for the people in the streets, our government is very US-minded, however after getting our minister for foreign affairs to be secretary general of the Nato, it's became a little less 'what the US says we do'.

Joe Sixpack here will only see the newsclips btw and "Kerry won" or "Bush won", but the people who like get more informed check out newsshows with more background info on the matter.

What frightens me is the number of US citizens who have the ability to vote in presidential elections, and therefore hold the sway in the world you rightly mention, but DO NOT VOTE! This is appalling, and embarrassing.

BTW: USA! USA! USA!

(Just had to get that out...)

swallace wrote:

What frightens me is the number of US citizens who have the ability to vote in presidential elections, and therefore hold the sway in the world you rightly mention, but DO NOT VOTE! This is appalling, and embarrassing.

But in a way also understandable. It's not their fault the president of their country is so powerful that he can influence other countries. Here in the netherlands we have 10 or so parties in the parliament and our government is chosen by the parties who can form a majority in the parliament, currently 3. This system gives us enough choice and a choice that can matter something. However in the US, if you don't like republicans nor democrats, what can you do? Vote for Nader? that won't matter anything. So I can perfectly understand why some people will say: "I don't care, I won't vote"

BTW: USA! USA! USA!

yeah yeah we hear ya

Btw, I hope for you all in the US, that the voting in Florida will be fair this year, although it was quite entertaining, 4 years ago

Understandably the US elections getr a LOT of coverage here in the UK - I sometimes think moreso than Mr Blair himself recieves.

MattWoberts wrote:

Understandably the US elections getr a LOT of coverage here in the UK - I sometimes think moreso than Mr Blair himself recieves.

But then again, with all the flack Blair gets nowadays, I think he's perhaps a little bit happy he's out of the spotlight

Yep, although its a lot less than Bush.. theres definately more bush-bashig than bliar-bashing going on!

I agree, in a two party system electing presidents through direct voting is virtually unworkable. The momentum of the two parties is all that can penetrate the public consciousness, and other parties just can’t keep up.

I like our system of the electoral college, but that's more to protect smaller, less influential states from behemoths like California and Texas. It doesn't do enough to prevent party factionalism, which was virtually unheard-of when our Constitution was laid out.

However, I'm also not convinced that party-selection of a Prime Minister is workable in a country as large as ours. It smells too much of what's called the "smoke filled room" where powerful men get together and select a puppet leader.

The electoral college gives small states a say, and forces candidates to give consideration (political favors) to even the smallest states. The exception is when a state is so solidly behind a candidate (as Oklahoma is for Bush) that we get no attention from anyone, and practically give our vote away.

Ultimately, it's about having an educated populous. This explains why Oklahoma is so strongly for one candidate. (Draw your own conclusions...)

Myself, I would strongly consider a Libertarian candidate, but it would not affect our state's seven electoral college votes, which will go for Bush.

However, I will vote.

As for Florida, I’d suspect their ballots are now so waterlogged from the three hurricanes I don’t know how they’ll vote at all! Seriously, the big scandal to watch is about electronic voting machines corruption, and suspected manipulation of them. They suck, and the company that builds them, Debold, is typical government contractor scum, with the attitude, “this is what you’re getting, and you’ll like it!” What a mess it’s going to be.

The important thing to remember is that voting standards are established by the States, not the federal government. There are 50 standards, 50 different things that can go totally wrong. The idea that Bush, or any influential national leader, can manipulate them is pure baloney. The polling places are run by little old ladies who volunteer and know virtually everyone who comes in. I know the old ladies (respectfully called the League of Women Voters) who run my polling place, and no pinhead in Washington DC is going to tell them how to do it. And that's as it should be.

So if it's screwed up, blame the old ladies!

Vote early and often, that’s my motto.

BTW, Isn't Blair due to call an election soon? Also, I think Chirac is facing the polls March at the latest.

Interesting times...

The biggest political news we get from the Netherlands (The Netherlands with a capital "T"?) is when you had a prince marry some gal from Microsoft.

What do you call your voting areas for which you select a representative to parliment? States, districts, counties? Is it translatable?

Otis wrote:

... in the US, if you don't like republicans nor democrats, what can you do? Vote for Nader?

The crazy thing is, the last time I checked, Nader was in 6th place in the overall polls. The Libertarian Candidate was in 5th. Kerry and Bush were nearly tied for the top 2 spots. How many Americans even know that the candidates in the 3rd and 4th spots even exist or what parties they belong to? Not many. The 2 parties in power (Republican and Democrat) make sure that they stay in power by ignoring any other party. Nader is known mostly because he's been such a pain in the arse to big business for so long and he's so good at it by now.

Btw, I was wrong about not having the debates live on tv here. They are live in tv, with background comments and pundits... at 2am-3am in the morning! (we're 6-9 hours later in timezones) I'm not sure if someone will actually watch them

swallace wrote:

I agree, in a two party system electing presidents through direct voting is virtually unworkable. The momentum of the two parties is all that can penetrate the public consciousness, and other parties just can’t keep up.

Isn't that also the result of mass-media we have today? With 2 parties, you have ultimately 2 choices, unless parties themselves allow party members to speak out for themselves without having them obey a given party doctrine.

I like our system of the electoral college, but that's more to protect smaller, less influential states from behemoths like California and Texas. It doesn't do enough to prevent party factionalism, which was virtually unheard-of when our Constitution was laid out. However, I'm also not convinced that party-selection of a Prime Minister is workable in a country as large as ours. It smells too much of what's called the "smoke filled room" where powerful men get together and select a puppet leader. The electoral college gives small states a say, and forces candidates to give consideration (political favors) to even the smallest states. The exception is when a state is so solidly behind a candidate (as Oklahoma is for Bush) that we get no attention from anyone, and practically give our vote away.

You have a point there. We're a small country (16mill people) so it's doable. When countries get bigger the distance between the real power and the guy in the street is getting bigger as well. What results in populism, which IMHO is one of the biggest threats to our modern democracies. (i.e.: if you want to get elected: tell the public you're going to do what they want to hear, not what's necessary to do, which can be 2 different things).

Ultimately, it's about having an educated populous. This explains why Oklahoma is so strongly for one candidate. (Draw your own conclusions...)

Heh, that's the same everywhere. Like I said: if the distance between the power and the average person is very large, populism can win anyone over: just tell them that sounds believable and they're behind you. Plato already wrote a lot about this in the old greek days, and not a lot of people have learned a lesson from that

Myself, I would strongly consider a Libertarian candidate, but it would not affect our state's seven electoral college votes, which will go for Bush.

My dictionairy says Libertarian is someone who is very pro-freewill. I'm not sure where to place that in the political spectrum. (IF I was a us citizen I'd vote for Nader, but then again, even our most right-wing party here would still be considered 'liberal' in the US I think )

However, I will vote.

Good And you'll never know

As for Florida, I’d suspect their ballots are now so waterlogged from the three hurricanes I don’t know how they’ll vote at all! Seriously, the big scandal to watch is about electronic voting machines corruption, and suspected manipulation of them. They suck, and the company that builds them, Debold, is typical government contractor scum, with the attitude, “this is what you’re getting, and you’ll like it!” What a mess it’s going to be.

If I say that we vote using electronic election machines since 10, 12 years or so already, would you believe me? Here, you can only vote by pressing buttons, I'm very surprised in the US they can't find good voting machines which work. But I agree, what I've read about the issues with those voting machines, it's indeed a disaster waiting to happen. I'm also worried about the people who are intimidated by government people so they'll not vote or are suddenly registered as ex-convicts while they never have seen a jail. But the biggest thing, and really, I can't believe people let this happen, is that the director of the elections in florida is / was a member of the Bush election campagne!

The important thing to remember is that voting standards are established by the States, not the federal government. There are 50 standards, 50 different things that can go totally wrong. The idea that Bush, or any influential national leader, can manipulate them is pure baloney. The polling places are run by little old ladies who volunteer and know virtually everyone who comes in. I know the old ladies (respectfully called the League of Women Voters) who run my polling place, and no pinhead in Washington DC is going to tell them how to do it. And that's as it should be.

I'm sure that's not everywhere, you probably also know your neighbours on your block, but how many people in the big cities do that too? Plus: as with the puzzle-ballot last time, there are plenty of tricks that can be pulled.

Personally, the media has too much power in your country. A guy like Dean would be ok for the whitehouse, but could never get there because of some peptalk he gave to his campagneworkers . Here that wouldn't be possible, but perhaps we're not used to the rough politics as it is played in the US, don't know

swallace wrote:

The biggest political news we get from the Netherlands (The Netherlands with a capital "T"?) is when you had a prince marry some gal from Microsoft.

haha , well we don't have a prince who married someone from MS, however a prince married the daughter of an ex-argentinian junta member. (Which caused some uproar )

What do you call your voting areas for which you select a representative to parliment? States, districts, counties? Is it translatable?

We have 2 parliaments, the 2nd chamber and the 1st chamber. The 2nd chamber has 150 people and these are elected directly by the public. These are still individual, but since a long time we have parties and you normally vote on a party (12 or so of them). The biggest party after an election (every 4 years, unless the government is send home by the 2nd chamber, happens every 10 years or so ) may start forming a coalition with other parties to get a majority (no party has a majority here, a 3rd tops) in the 2nd chamber. They make a deal, the coalition agreement and when that happens, the coalition will form a government, and the biggest party is supplying the prime-minister.

The government creates laws, and the 2nd chamber has to rectify them. If the 2nd chamber is not agreeing, the government has to change / drop the laws they suggested. They can decide things on their own as well. We also have 12 provinces with a local government which decide on local things. These are also elected directly by the public. These 12 provinces elect the 1st chamber's 75 members. The 1st chamber has the power to correct the 2nd chamber's decisions. Normally this isn't that common, as it would suggest a crisis.

Pretty basic. What we do have here, is that political parties may advertise on TV but very minimal. This limits rethoric and populism (abit).

We also have a queen who is the formal head of the government but is not allowed to do anything (although behind the scenes she's very powerful). Personally I'd like to see the queen to be removed from the government at all, as her influence is not visible nor controllable. Our queen als costs a lot of money, about 70mill euro a year, while the royal family is one of the richests families in the world with over 8billion $ on the bank, oh well...

Btw, I was wrong about not having the debates live on tv here. They are live in tv, with background comments and pundits... at 2am-3am in the morning!

And yet, they may draw a bigger viewership there than here in the US!

Isn't that also the result of mass-media we have today?

You bet it is. The media is far too powerful here, and was strengthened recently by a campaign finance reform bill that limits advertising during the last stages of an election cycle. The "news" media then becomes the only source of "information," giving their slants too much influence.

Sadly, there was as study recently revealing that, for 20 to 30 year olds, their primary source of news was Jay Leno's monologue. It made me want to barf.

What results in populism, which IMHO is one of the biggest threats to our modern democracies.

Yes, when populism is mixed with an irresponsible media. On it's own, and with an educated citizenry, it's not evil. But remember (and we have to remind ourselves sometimes) we're a republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to vote for us, we don't vote directly on issues. Such is the idea behind our electoral college.

Oklahoma was founded in 1907 during a wave of populism (without mass media) in this country, and as a result our governour is weak and legislature is strong. In my opinion this has limited our ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions, and fostered croneyism and corporate influence, though I feel it was the right thing for the rural, uneducated, poor citizens of a hundred years ago. Today we can't keep up because we have no single voice.

My dictionairy says Libertarian is someone who is very pro-freewill. I'm not sure where to place that in the political spectrum.

There is a contradiction between libertarianism and government, and it would be ironic for a libertarian to be head of state! However, libertarianism is (today) closest to the frontier spirit that used to exist here, as well as the "government has no powers other than those enumerated in the constitution" idea on which we were founded. We have lost that, and I am anxious that they be reasserted. There are far too many people in this country who can't make it day-to-day without the government security blanket.

If I say that we vote using electronic election machines since 10, 12 years or so already, would you believe me?

I'm glad to hear it can work, and I hope examples of it working get known. Here in Oklahoma we vote on a large paper ballot by completing lines that get read into a scanner at the polling place. The votes are scanned and an electronic tabulation occurs, but there is a clear paper trail completed by the voter themselves. We've never had a contested election since this was put in place. Again, each of the 50 states does it differently, so I only speak for us. I agree that most everyone doesn't know the people at their polling place, and it could be that I only know them because I once ran for the state legislature (I was soundly beaten. sigh).

well we don't have a prince who married someone from MS

Sorry, I may be confusing my European countries. That happens. You should see the mistakes I've made regarding the -istan countries. Downright embarrassing!

We also have a queen ...

I'm a hard-core American, but something about having a queen sounds cool. I can't explain it. Tradition, ceremony, pomp. Very cool. For a while there were questions of whether George Washington (in his day) should be refererred to as "His Excellency," but they settled on "Mr. President." Very boring. However, he did refuse to shake people's hands, deciding that it was "undignified for a president." That didn't take in the long run.

What do call the 1st and 2nd parliaments? Is there a Prime Minister?

swallace wrote:

Btw, I was wrong about not having the debates live on tv here. They are live in tv, with background comments and pundits... at 2am-3am in the morning!

And yet, they may draw a bigger viewership there than here in the US!

haha Well, I can imagine, watching plain old rethoric for hours is IMHO pretty boring, as what they'll say is what draws voters to them, and once the elections are over, they have other powers to deal with like getting laws through congres or please everyone who paid for the campagne.

Sadly, there was as study recently revealing that, for 20 to 30 year olds, their primary source of news was Jay Leno's monologue. It made me want to barf.

Heh, I read that too Still, I find it understandable. If you have rethoric and reventing nonsense around the clock, it gets you numb I think. When something is entertaining, it's worth watching, which then will get the message through.

Oklahoma was founded in 1907 during a wave of populism (without mass media) in this country, and as a result our governour is weak and legislature is strong. In my opinion this has limited our ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions, and fostered croneyism and corporate influence, though I feel it was the right thing for the rural, uneducated, poor citizens of a hundred years ago. Today we can't keep up because we have no single voice.

Hmmm. However if the local government provides infrastructure and oppertunities to companies to get started in oklahoma, why would they opt for another state? The Dutch government for example added a tax-trick for companies, which made it cheaper for multi-nationals to put their european HQ in The Netherlands than anywhere else on the continent. As 70% of our population works in the provision of services field, it's a great thing for our economy. But ok, the country also has to have some things which attracks companies, like an educated population, resources etc.

My dictionairy says Libertarian is someone who is very pro-freewill. I'm not sure where to place that in the political spectrum.

There is a contradiction between libertarianism and government, and it would be ironic for a libertarian to be head of state! However, libertarianism is (today) closest to the frontier spirit that used to exist here, as well as the "government has no powers other than those enumerated in the constitution" idea on which we were founded. We have lost that, and I am anxious that they be reasserted. There are far too many people in this country who can't make it day-to-day without the government security blanket.

That sounds close to anarchy

If I say that we vote using electronic election machines since 10, 12 years or so already, would you believe me?

I'm glad to hear it can work, and I hope examples of it working get known. Here in Oklahoma we vote on a large paper ballot by completing lines that get read into a scanner at the polling place. The votes are scanned and an electronic tabulation occurs, but there is a clear paper trail completed by the voter themselves. We've never had a contested election since this was put in place. Again, each of the 50 states does it differently, so I only speak for us. I agree that most everyone doesn't know the people at their polling place, and it could be that I only know them because I once ran for the state legislature (I was soundly beaten. sigh).

A paper trail is good I think. As long as corruption can be detected. With so much at stake, corruption is inevitable.

We also have a queen ...

I'm a hard-core American, but something about having a queen sounds cool. I can't explain it. Tradition, ceremony, pomp. Very cool. For a while there were questions of whether George Washington (in his day) should be refererred to as "His Excellency," but they settled on "Mr. President." Very boring. However, he did refuse to shake people's hands, deciding that it was "undignified for a president." That didn't take in the long run.

The ceremony part is ok, it breaths old history, going back till 16th century. It's however the hidden connection between the real power and the people acting in the ceremonial part of the kingdom that's bothering me. Sweden if I'm not mistaken has a better model: the queen/king is pure ceremonial and has no power at all.

What do call the 1st and 2nd parliaments? Is there a Prime Minister?

I'm not sure what comes first in the US: congress or house of representatives. Here teh 2nd parliament controls the goverment, and the 1st parliament controls the 2nd parliament. There is a prime minister, it's the party leader of the largest party in teh coalition forming the government. At the moment we have a guy who looks a lot like Harry Potter as prime minister... I think if I add that the real harry potter solved hte problems and really had powers, you have a good picture I think