Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:19 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Presidential elections
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse
Since the forum seems to be a bit silent lately, I have decided to inform you, that this week, Czech Republic is starting the first round of its first ever direct presidential elections. The candidates on Wikipedia:

Jana Bobošíková - former MEP, head of her own eurosceptic fringe party
Jiří Dienstbier Jr. - candidate of Social Democrats
Jan Fischer - former succesful prime minister
Táňa Fischerová - former member of parliament, now a civic candidate - she started with no party backing and decided to run the campaign entirely with volunteers, though later she got some support from Green Party
Vladimír Franz - another civic candidate, opera composer, popular among young people, because most of his body is tatooed
Zuzana Roithová - MEP for Christian Democrats
Karel Schwarzenberg - head of conservative TOP09 party, current minister
Přemysl Sobotka - former head of Senate, candidate of Civic Democrats (currently governing and probably most corrupt party)
Miloš Zeman - former head of social democrats and prime minister, now head of his own party, lately showing himself an islamophob

You don't get such a choice in USA ;-)

_________________
ImageImageImage
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
Loflar wrote:
Since the forum seems to be a bit silent lately, I have decided to inform you, that this week, Czech Republic is starting the first round of its first ever direct presidential elections. The candidates on Wikipedia:

Jana Bobošíková - former MEP, head of her own eurosceptic fringe party
Jiří Dienstbier Jr. - candidate of Social Democrats
Jan Fischer - former succesful prime minister
Táňa Fischerová - former member of parliament, now a civic candidate - she started with no party backing and decided to run the campaign entirely with volunteers, though later she got some support from Green Party
Vladimír Franz - another civic candidate, opera composer, popular among young people, because most of his body is tatooed
Zuzana Roithová - MEP for Christian Democrats
Karel Schwarzenberg - head of conservative TOP09 party, current minister
Přemysl Sobotka - former head of Senate, candidate of Civic Democrats (currently governing and probably most corrupt party)
Miloš Zeman - former head of social democrats and prime minister, now head of his own party, lately showing himself an islamophob

You don't get such a choice in USA ;-)


Actually we do. It's just that few vote for anyone other then the top two. And if you include our primaries (basically an early elimination round of elections) we actually have far more choices. That we have only two choices is the strangest (and one of the most common) myths about American politics. Even most of us buy into it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
Loflar wrote:
You don't get such a choice in USA ;-)


Actually we do. It's just that few vote for anyone other then the top two. And if you include our primaries (basically an early elimination round of elections) we actually have far more choices. That we have only two choices is the strangest (and one of the most common) myths about American politics. Even most of us buy into it.

I know that you have more then two. About five last time, right? But try as you might, you do not get the farce to our level. Like at the point where officers of ministry of internal afairs were checking petitions (a candidate who is not nominated by members of parliament must have 50 000 signatures of support), and sorted some out, while showing, that they do not understand percentages.

_________________
ImageImageImage
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:01 pm 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
Loflar wrote:
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
Loflar wrote:
You don't get such a choice in USA ;-)


Actually we do. It's just that few vote for anyone other then the top two. And if you include our primaries (basically an early elimination round of elections) we actually have far more choices. That we have only two choices is the strangest (and one of the most common) myths about American politics. Even most of us buy into it.

I know that you have more then two. About five last time, right? But try as you might, you do not get the farce to our level. Like at the point where officers of ministry of internal afairs were checking petitions (a candidate who is not nominated by members of parliament must have 50 000 signatures of support), and sorted some out, while showing, that they do not understand percentages.


How many depends on what state you live in actually. In Michigan we had 5, others had more. And if you include the primary round we had at least 9 more. But yes, we do tend to follow our election laws reasonably well- for the most part.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:29 pm 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 6517
Location: The city of Spires
There is choice and then there is choice.

Last elections in the netherlands (we just chose a parlement, not a president), we had 21 parties. However, if you voted for the smallest 10 of them, you basically knew you were trowing your voice away, since there was no way that they were getting enough votes to get a seat in the parlement. So while it was true that you could choose from 21 parties, any serious voter limited himself to about half that number. In the end, only 10 parties got seats, with the smallest getting 2 seats (out of a possible 150).

The same is true in the US. There may be more candidates (there could very well be 20 as well), but when was the last time a candidate was elected to be president who wasn't from either the democratic or the republican party? If my wiki-skills haven't left me, it was somewhere around 1850. So while it looks nice on paper to have more than 2 candidates, the chance of one of those two not becoming president are so small it's not even worth voting for someone else.

The same seems true for both the congress and the house of representatives. 2 out of a possible 535 members are not from either the democratic or the republican party.

(BTW, I'm not saying one system is better or worse then the other. Try forming a government where you need a coalition of at least 3 political parties. It's not pretty)

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 166/18/104


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:29 pm 
Offline
Rainbows
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Posts: 2901
Location: Tower of Hoeth
These presidential elections were invented because Czech politicians do not want to vote for a law that would enable general referendum. They do not want to give out bread so all that is left are circenses.

_________________
Rainbows painting blog
Secret Santa 2016


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:22 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Warsaw, Poland
I read Fischer and Zeman are leading?

Personally, I'd go with Schwarzenberg probably.

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:03 pm 
Offline
Young Eataini Prince
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 3606
RE.Lee wrote:
Personally, I'd go with Schwarzenberg probably.


Far too right wing for me. :)

_________________
"I say the Eatainii were cheating - again." -Aicanor
"Eatainian jerks…" -Headshot
"It was a little ungentlemanly." -Aicanor (on the Eatainii)
"What is it with Eataini being blamed for everything?" -Aicanor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
rdghuizing wrote:
The same is true in the US. There may be more candidates (there could very well be 20 as well), but when was the last time a candidate was elected to be president who wasn't from either the democratic or the republican party? If my wiki-skills haven't left me, it was somewhere around 1850. So while it looks nice on paper to have more than 2 candidates, the chance of one of those two not becoming president are so small it's not even worth voting for someone else.
Rod


But this is where even most Americans prove how poorly they understand the process. Those top two candidates (and it's always been two parties- they've just had different names) aren't picked from hats. People vote on those- and there are a lot of rather diverse choices, but very few actually show up to do so. And then they complain that they don't like the candidates that they end up with. It's something that drives me crazy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Posts: 800
Location: San Diego, CA
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
rdghuizing wrote:
The same is true in the US. There may be more candidates (there could very well be 20 as well), but when was the last time a candidate was elected to be president who wasn't from either the democratic or the republican party? If my wiki-skills haven't left me, it was somewhere around 1850. So while it looks nice on paper to have more than 2 candidates, the chance of one of those two not becoming president are so small it's not even worth voting for someone else.
Rod


But this is where even most Americans prove how poorly they understand the process. Those top two candidates (and it's always been two parties- they've just had different names) aren't picked from hats. People vote on those- and there are a lot of rather diverse choices, but very few actually show up to do so. And then they complain that they don't like the candidates that they end up with. It's something that drives me crazy.


Eh. I think Americans tend to be more educated in the primary process than you're giving them credit for. The main reason why primaries are generally viewed with such disdain is that in many states primaries only members of the national party can vote within that primary. In California, they had to pass a ballot referendum allowing open primaries where you could be registered as a Democrat and vote for a Republican candidate and vice versa. As a registered Independent voter not affiliated with either party, I was often only able to vote for Democratic candidates in the primaries prior to the law change. There is good reason why people tend to disregard the primaries.

Even worse, is that the primary elections are geared toward the ever shrinking and increasingly fanatical bases of the two major parties. The Republican primaries this election cycle were a complete joke. The majority of the candidates were never plausible national candidates because they held, or claimed to hold, extreme right wing views to placate the base and the only centrist/moderate (Hunstman Sp?) of the group was booted quickly. Anyways, picking between corrupt party A and corrupt party B to me is a pretty shitty choice, yet I still vote, because otherwise the one shittier option of the two might win without my having made an input. The American system was best summed up by South Park when they mocked the Bush v. Kerry election of '04 as being a choice between a "Giant Douche" and a "Shit Sandwich", with either candidate being plausible for the description.

_________________
My Plog - Tele's Torpid Painting Log


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
But see, you're letting your own opinion of the candidates cloud what you think is a "viable" candidate. You've also let the story as it was told cloud things. Mitt Romney is hardly a right-wing extremist.

As for the not voting in primaries- 90% of that is nothing but excuses for not getting involved. I'm serious. I'm done with people complaining about this. If you don't like the candidates get involved now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:01 pm 
Offline
Rainbows
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Posts: 2901
Location: Tower of Hoeth
Looking at our politic scene I dearly wish there was an option to give negative votes (a democratic process called ostracism). With the discussed election I dare say the official candidates of political parties won't win this time.

Shannar, I did not watch your elections very closely, but some of Romney's opinions definitely sound very disturbing to me.

_________________
Rainbows painting blog
Secret Santa 2016


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Posts: 800
Location: San Diego, CA
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
But see, you're letting your own opinion of the candidates cloud what you think is a "viable" candidate. You've also let the story as it was told cloud things. Mitt Romney is hardly a right-wing extremist.

As for the not voting in primaries- 90% of that is nothing but excuses for not getting involved. I'm serious. I'm done with people complaining about this. If you don't like the candidates get involved now.


I never said Mitt wasn't a viable candidate nor a right wing extremist - Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum filled those roles nicely.. I actually believed, prior to the primaries, that he was one of the more sensible and moderate Republican candidates who were considering running and had a very good chance to win the election. Hell, I thought up until 9 p.m. PST on election night that he had a good chance. However, the primaries and the associated debates made most of the candidates seem bat shit crazy in some arenas (i.e. immigration, taxation, abortion/family planning).

And it's not the story as it was told. It was the complete 180s or sharp right turns Romney took in the primaries that made me not trust the guy. It's difficult to go from seeming moderate to right wing ("severely conservative" as he put it) then head back to moderate without looking disingenuous or saying things for political expediency.

Back on topic though, I think we're arguing over a 'which came first: chicken v. egg' sort of situation here. You think, or at least this is the way I've interpreted it so correct me if I am wrong, that people are apathetic about the primary process, don't vote in primaries and then complain about the candidates in the general election. While I am arguing that people are disenfranchised from the primary process, don't like the candidates in the primaries resulting in less participation and complain about that throughout the process. I think the general apathy is a result of poor candidates vs. the poor candidates as the result of general apathy. Like I said, I think we're arguing over the classic chicken or the egg.

I've just always found it interesting that countries with "winner take all/first past the post" kind of systems which typically are dominated mainly by two parties (U.S. & U.K., although the UK has other viable parties than Tories and Labour) tend to have much lower voter turnout than that of the proportional systems. Which in the U.S., leads us back towards primaries and the greater polarization of the parties vs. the general populace.

_________________
My Plog - Tele's Torpid Painting Log


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse
Oh, too many things to react to. Anyway...

Shannar, Sealord wrote:
How many depends on what state you live in actually. In Michigan we had 5, others had more. And if you include the primary round we had at least 9 more. But yes, we do tend to follow our election laws reasonably well- for the most part.

That is one thing I do not understand on US elections. Shouldn't a candidate for the highest position of all the federation be available as a choice in every state? What would happen, if, say, Florida, elected different president?

Aicanor wrote:
These presidential elections were invented because Czech politicians do not want to vote for a law that would enable general referendum.

I guess this is the reason for the hype made about them when the Parliament accepted them. However, I think that the reason for making this election direct is, that in current situation, none of parties in Parliament would be be able to push its candidate through in the former system.

RE.Lee wrote:
I read Fischer and Zeman are leading?

That is what opinion polls are saying. However, in last elections (regional), opinion polls were sometimes so distorted that there were accusations of manipulation - i.e., that media supported certain parties by using polls made on unrepresentative groups of people. AFAIK the issue is still not resolved. After all, if you look on the title of presidential debates in Czech TV ( http://www.blisty.cz/art/66802.html ), it doesn't look like that all candidates are equal.

RE.Lee wrote:
Personally, I'd go with Schwarzenberg probably.

He is part of current government, which according to some people, is the worst we have had since 1950, and I am inclined to believe it. He is also known not to shy from corruption, and to insist that you vote the person, not the program (i.e., the program is not important for him once he is elected). Political differences aside, I think that he is too old for any high government position.

Myself, I am considering Fischerová or Dienstbier. Both seem to be able to keep their promises and respect constitution (unlike current president). Both of them are also in opposition to current destructive government policy.

Teledor wrote:
Back on topic though, I think we're arguing over a 'which came first: chicken v. egg' sort of situation here. You think, or at least this is the way I've interpreted it so correct me if I am wrong, that people are apathetic about the primary process, don't vote in primaries and then complain about the candidates in the general election. While I am arguing that people are disenfranchised from the primary process, don't like the candidates in the primaries resulting in less participation and complain about that throughout the process. I think the general apathy is a result of poor candidates vs. the poor candidates as the result of general apathy. Like I said, I think we're arguing over the classic chicken or the egg.

I've just always found it interesting that countries with "winner take all/first past the post" kind of systems which typically are dominated mainly by two parties (U.S. & U.K., although the UK has other viable parties than Tories and Labour) tend to have much lower voter turnout than that of the proportional systems. Which in the U.S., leads us back towards primaries and the greater polarization of the parties vs. the general populace.

I think that the majority system may be part of the problem. Its upside is, that it is easy, its downside that it forces people to vote for lesser evil. I will probably have to abandon a candidate which might be more interesting in favor of the one who has higher chance to make it into second round.

Now, I don't know what is the situation in USA, but judging by our situation, low membership of parties might be part of the problem. I don't have problem with primaries run inside a party. After all, it means that the choice is made by interested people. However, if the party is small, then you get candidates who don't necessarily offer what most of people want. (For comparison, our biggest party - communist - has about 50 000 members, which is about 0.5% of population, and they are oscilating between 10 - 20% of votes in elections. This suggests that more successful parties should have more members. But they don't.) My point is, that people have generally forgotten, that if they want politics to yield acceptable results, they have to participate in it.

_________________
ImageImageImage
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
Something Cool

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 2309
Location: Northern, California USA
We don't even elect our own president in the United States. The Electoral College does it for us. For those unfamiliar its a body of select individuals who actually cast their vote for their state in the presidential race.

The popular vote means nothing.

_________________
Ptolemy wrote:
Im not above whoring myself for a good cause. ;)


Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:55 pm 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
Quote:
My point is, that people have generally forgotten, that if they want politics to yield acceptable results, they have to participate in it.


I couldn't agree more. This is true everywhere, and the most important point anyone could make.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 927
Location: Oklahoma
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
Quote:
My point is, that people have generally forgotten, that if they want politics to yield acceptable results, they have to participate in it.


I couldn't agree more. This is true everywhere, and the most important point anyone could make.

I agree to a point, but the current situation in the USA is part of the reason that participation in politics can also be a bad thing. The ones who whine the loudest (aka the Tea Party), have wielded undue influence in the Republican party for far too long. They have crafted a polarization in politics that serves nobody's interests. Demagogues (Rand Paul) have risen to power in replacement to politicians who were willing to compromise. The Blue Dog Democrats are all but gone. "The people", or at least the loudest people, asked for polarization and that is exactly what they got. However, right now they've realized they have to lie in the bed that they made (sequestration is its name), and they don't like it.

_________________
Ulthuan in Flames: 13/9/6 Bel Hathor 77 kills


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:20 am 
Offline
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3517
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
See, I think you're dead wrong there. The so called tea party is mostly a myth that really only exists in the minds of liberals. In the real world they are mostly just known as fiscal conservatives (and most of them only really care about the fiscal issues).

And this sequester isn't going to be a big deal. If it was Obama wouldn't be out golfing and taking trips to blame republicans, and congress wouldn't be in recess with republicans taking time to go on shows to blame Obama . It would have been nice if they all could have been a little more adult about figuring out where to increase spending by a smaller amount then planned, but at least with this they actually will increase spending by a smaller amount then planned.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group