|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote in message . au... What is the nature of this pollution? Quite a bit of it is fertilizer and pesticide runoff, but a lot of it is sewage, as well. Myself, I wouldn't call that pollution compared to what comes out of a car's arse. The problem is that the pollution feeds algae in unbalanced numbers, which ends up either directly killing stuff (and indirectly the stuff that depends on *that* stuff), or driving it away. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... Has Switzerland extended the franchise to all women in all elections? I thought there were differences between cantons, but I'm basing this on really old information. Yeah! Let's bring democracy to Switzerland next! I could use a new watch. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote: Has Switzerland extended the franchise to all women in all elections? I thought there were differences between cantons, but I'm basing this on really old information. Mary I believe so and I believe it occurred as late at the 1970's because I seem to remember my aunt and my father (both Swiss citizens - my father by birth, my aunt by derivation from her parents) having a bit of a fight over it. My semi-hippy aunt was elated, my father started teasing his baby sister, and things rapidly deteriorated from there. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote: You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the US and the time they started direct elections of the President and Senate, don't you? This is a hilarious point for several reasons. First because the President of the US is not technically directly elected even today. So, you're making your point on the *relative* degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever voted for someone running for the Electoral College? (I have, but that varies by state). Second because America's system of government is far, far more populist than any in Europe. And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number of necessary events to coalesce that form of government. You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around and give it up with no real issue. Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government? If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this? That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It requires a development period. Some of the election systems in Europe are so indirect it makes me wonder if they really should be called democracies. This differs from early America in what way exactly? In any event, the EU cannot reasonably be called a democratic institution. Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the people to elect both houses on Congress. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
Christopher M. Jones wrote: Charles Buckley wrote: You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the US and the time they started direct elections of the President and Senate, don't you? This is a hilarious point for several reasons. First because the President of the US is not technically directly elected even today. So, you're making your point on the *relative* degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever voted for someone running for the Electoral College? (I have, but that varies by state). Second because America's system of government is far, far more populist than any in Europe. And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number of necessary events to coalesce that form of government. You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around and give it up with no real issue. Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government? If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this? That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It requires a development period. Some of the election systems in Europe are so indirect it makes me wonder if they really should be called democracies. This differs from early America in what way exactly? In any event, the EU cannot reasonably be called a democratic institution. Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the people to elect both houses on Congress. May I ask which Charles Buckley is posting here? Are you related to the former NASA security chief? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Buckley wrote:
Christopher M. Jones wrote: This is a hilarious point for several reasons. First because the President of the US is not technically directly elected even today. So, you're making your point on the *relative* degree of indirectness of elections? Have you ever voted for someone running for the Electoral College? (I have, but that varies by state). The difference between, say, the electoral college and, say, the process of selection of EU ministers are enough to put them in completely different categories. In the case of the electoral college, there is over 2 centuries of history showing that it works, that for the most part it does represent the opinion of the electorate, and that on the rare occasions when it fails to do so it does so, for the most part, "gracefully". On the other hand, the EU bureaucracy is so far removed from the will of the electorate that it passes beyond humor. Second because America's system of government is far, far more populist than any in Europe. And it only took 200 years and a Civil War and any number of necessary events to coalesce that form of government. You're not allowing for a transition period. It was difficult for the US to get states to agree to the Constitution and that was after the first attempt at a limitted federal government failed and anarchy was a real possibility. You're expecting countries with thousands of years of sovereignty to turn around and give it up with no real issue. You seem to be under the impression that I am in favor of the EU or of some EU-like entity. I do not know where you would get that, but I am most decidedly not. Would you, for instance, agree to the US joining a World Government? If so, what terms and limitations would you put on it? Can you expect anything less from people and countries actually doing this? Again, I don't see where you get this. That the EU is being created is enough of a strain as it is. It requires a development period. I'm not sure of your meaning here. If you mean that the EU needs some time to develop after it has become a single nation, I would say I reject that. If you are saying that the notion of the EU and its foundations need to develop until they are suitable before they are put into practice, then I might agree with that. Some of the election systems in Europe are so indirect it makes me wonder if they really should be called democracies. This differs from early America in what way exactly? Again, the details matter. That the electoral college is nominally "indirect" belies its strong directness under the vast majority of circumstances. The level of indirectness that I take issue with are things such as the electorate having very little say in their "choice" of representatives. The Prime Minister system, for example, I dislike for precisely that reason. Systems where people vote for parties and those parties choose the list of representatives I dislike for the same reasons. In any event, the EU cannot reasonably be called a democratic institution. Except for the House of Representatives, that is also a direct statement of the US until the year 1913 when they allowed the people to elect both houses on Congress. Not at all. The system was less populist, and slightly more federal, but still very much democratic. Not least because the House and the President were elected, constituting, at the absolutely slimmest estimation, half the federal government. Moreover, before the Seventeenth amendment went into effect fully 29 states had popular nomination of Senators. Compare and contrast with the EU as it exists today and as it would be if the proposed constitution where adopted. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ... Systems where people vote for parties and those parties choose the list of representatives I dislike for the same reasons. Isn't that what your president does? Your whole Cabinet is unelected. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ... Systems where people vote for parties and those parties choose the list of representatives I dislike for the same reasons. Isn't that what your president does? Your whole Cabinet is unelected. The cabinet is not comprised of "representatives". Besides which, the vast majority of all federal employees are not elected. But that does not mean we live under an undemocratic government. What matters is that authority and accountability ultimately rests with elected officials (and thus with the electorate). At least it would without the hampering civil service regulations we have now. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote in message . au... "Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ... Systems where people vote for parties and those parties choose the list of representatives I dislike for the same reasons. Isn't that what your president does? Not in the least. Your whole Cabinet is unelected.. Correctly so. For one thing, they aren't supposed to represent anyone, particularly in a legislative fashion. Moreover, they are specifically tasked with carrying out the will of the President, so they should be appointed by him. Third, they are confirmed or denied by the Senate, which is an elected body. Florida, until recently, had many elected Cabinet officials. For example, the Florida Secretary of Education often publically ridiculed the Governor's education plan, and because she was directly elected, the Governor was powerless to do anything about it, thus damaging his ability to do his job. Worse, since a majority of the cabinet *was* elected, they could directly override the Governor; the Governor was the public symbol of Florida government, which means that *he* was held directly responsible for problems even when the actions of his Cabinet were directly contrary to his will. In short, the system acted like a bunch of mini-governors. How well would a parliamentary system act if every minister had much of the authority of the Prime Minister, and a majority of ministers could override the Prime Minister (who had no veto power against them)? It's hard to get things done when everybody insists on being the chief, and nobody wants to be an indian. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - August 27, 2004 | OzPirate | Policy | 0 | August 27th 04 10:11 PM |
Cassini-Huygens Mission Status Report - May 28, 2004 | Ron | Misc | 7 | June 1st 04 09:57 PM |
Space Calendar - May 28, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | May 28th 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - April 30, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | April 30th 04 03:55 PM |