wow

jsin - too cool. thanx...

i really appreciate being "schooled" as long as im not being called a jackass in the process. i will have to go look-up the difference between a republic and a representative democracy, becuase i dont think im understanding the distinction. thats ok tho - i appreciate you giving me the means to get more information.

ive (since civics or cartoons) in grade school - understood about the primary differences in the usa-way of legislating and ruling (as well as judging, which is a back-end process primarily). this is why - as a matter of "course" - i always default to NO on any initiative on the ballot. i try and try and try to explain this to others, but they never seem to agree - which is fine (except in the notable case of prop-8 recently in ca).

namely - we "hire" people whose sole job is to understand the politics of legislating our domains. their job is to balance out the special interests and general welfare when making decisions - ESPECIALLY decisions which are about allocating money. in particular, they (our legislative representatives) are aware of our state/federal budget !!! it is their JOB to keep it balanced. there is absolutely no reason, that i can see - for any ballot initiative to create a "credit card debt" on my society... whatever - i almost always lose this argument - and the default position that most of our society holds is to vote YES on anything on the ballot (since if it made it onto the ballot then "clearly" it must be important enough to be voted for, right? lol).

long ago - weve stopped putting our candidates (on voter ballots) in alphabetical order - cuz most people, given lack of reading skills or lack of knowledge/preferences, will make relatively arbitrary decisions - like to always vote for the "top" candidate on the list. i am NOT joking - hell, _I_ do it alot as well. ok, so i can read. i do not do ANY research on the judicial candidates or the county supervisors or whatever else we "have" to vote for as a representative office in most elections...

if some form of advertising, or word of mouth, or something-else (saturday night live?) does not make me aware of something/someone - then i oftentimes dont even read the candidate-statements in the booklet. hell, do they even print them anymore? they used to - but i dont think ive SEEN them in awhile... i just look at the name, make a quickie judgment on their age/race/sex based upon that name - look at their title, make another quickie judgment about their experience/enthusiasm/knowledge based upon that title - and fill in the bubble. i keep a little mental scorecard where i try to allocate some variety to my choices in age/race/sex and experience/enthusiasm/knowledge overall since i like a bunch of flavors to sample and try them out - and thats it... heck, i could just as easily always be picking the TOP one like everybody else... and i consider myself a "thoughtful" if not totally "educated" voter compared to most people. voting is NOT my job - it is my RIGHT and responsibility - but it is not something that i feel the need to excel at for any reason.

ah well - there ya go - on that subject... namely, when i "denigrate" the general population about their voting skills - i am not trying for a "holier than thou" stance, im saying i KNOW because i am one of them, in my own way...

as far as the electoral college needing a "balance". i dont know - that was kinda my initial point/question... DOES it ? in a sense, especially the way that most of the states seem to be required to have all of their electoral-college representatives vote the same-way - the college actually causes a more-fair system (like the senate having individuals, but like the congress having "more" individuals per populace) in my mind... and, i "think" that since the college-representatives are truly allowed to vote-their-own-mind, independent of their populace, then there is even a "balance" there as well... altho - truthfully - we are such an entrenched society that while "in theory" there are all these apparent checks/balances, in practice they never are used...

anyways, thanx again for the thoughtful responses - ive been given lots to think about (and research) that is very cool...

I'm overjoyed for you guys... many (if not most) Canadians are...

i hope he walks his talk.
i hope that, while the president will always be to some degree a puppet
to american corporations, this one stands his ground on some important
issues and takes charge to make a difference where it's needed most.

Bush must just be *giddy* with the mess he's leaving to be tidied up...
i hope Obama is up to the task.

he's just one man, and in no way does he have omnipotent power.
i've been watching the news, interviews with street kids in harsh cities,
and they don't really think this is going to change *their* lives much just
because he's African-American... but there's hope that he changes *something*.

i can't wait to see what unfolds.
and bless him, he can come leaps and bounds if just in comparison
to the regime that's been in place for the past 8 years.


Good luck, you guys... :)

republican tampering is "worse" than democrat tampering... yeah - i will give you that one.

it is kinda the nature (making some disgusting assumptions again) of the system tho. the wealthy/smart folks will do more/better tampering than the poor/ignorant ones. yes, yes - that was totally rude and uncalled for. im sorry.

however, i witnessed (i received a specific question about it) some of the tampering from the democratic party as well. for instance - getting unknowledgeable people to vote (if they have/had no interest in their rights/responsibilities to begin with - why should anyone force them to?). also, preying on the ignorance of these unknowledgeable voters to sway their votes.

im specifically thinking about the following example that someone asked me a question about online last saturday. their question was this - i was told that if i vote "democrat" that i could not change my vote anywhere else on the ballot, is that true?

the assumptions inherent in that question - i went thru and challenged - and explained what i believed to be the correct answer. also, i told them that there are poll workers at the voting locations whose sole JOB is to help you to vote. if the instructions that you were given do not have your question answered (either you cannot read it or do not understand what you are reading or whatever...), then you can ask the poll workers. they WILL sit and answer your questions. the will NOT try and sway your vote. they are only there to help...

i absolutely agree with you rich - that i would prefer a larger, more knowledgable populace of voters. however those two kinda go together in my mind. it is not about me wanting to maintain or control things myself - it is about wanting my government to remain in some form of control. i want the populace to have THEIR opinions heard, not someone elses - which cuts both ways. namely, corporate special interests or joe-sixpack bullying their voting-age-daughter to vote for xyz...

i do not want a 12 yo driving a car even if they are tall enough and smart enough to drive. and IF (for instance) i am taking "public" transportation, then i also want my "driver" to be knowledgeable and safe and in-control. im completely willing to "elect" my train-engineer based solely on their enthusiasm for the job - because i will assume that this enthusiasm will make them a "better" locomotive driver than someone who is just doing-it-to-fill-out-a-timesheet.

yes, these snobbish attitudes im spouting off are the basis of all those discriminations like not allowing blacks to vote, or women, or whatever. i honestly understand that. however, i think im still fighting that basic urge to find some way to discriminate. ie - maybe we need a voting-test, like we need a driving test... naw - i do not honestly believe that...

actually, if i were to give a "test" for our government-processes - i think it should be given to the people-we-are-trying-to-choose-between. namely, i think that we need a legislating-test kinda like we require a driving-test. and in the past (and currently) we kinda DO have one. it is the bar-exam. a fair number of presidents and legislators were from the legal profession. and that is a "good thing" imho. they obviously "care" about the law or they would not have chosen that as their profession, right? isnt obama a lawyer?