Election Question

[Lavindathar]

Originally Posted by Yorick I certainly will compare. And it's not just the USA either. The States in Australia are also analogous to conjoined countries, and, as it is in the USA, each state is divided into counties as well.

No, I disagree. They are not the same at all. America is your country, Austrailia is a country, England is a country.

Just because your states have counties, doesn't mean your state is comparable to our country.

Comparing size or population has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Yorick Then ask questions instead of making insulting demeaning remarks that make your system out to be completely superior to the low-brow Americans, who just happened to usher in modern democracy in western society. At least the Americans don't have an antiquated hereditary monarch who does pretty much NOTHING to rule, sucking up taxpayer dollars and reminding us of a heinous system of autocratic feudalism that repressed the lower classes at the whim of the monarch.

Secondly, I fail to see anywhere in this topic where I have made any demeaning remark about the US election policys. I merely asked how it worked.

And true, the American doesn't have a Monarchy. And true, they pretty much do nothing here in England. But sucking up the taxpayers money?

Lol, money is the only reason we still have the monarchy. That and tradition. The monarchy is one of the biggest money earners our country has....do you know how many tourists visit Buckingham Palace each year? Or london in general.

The monarchy earns the country a fortune, it does not cost it. Even though yes, we spend far too much money on their stuff, they still turn a HUGE profit.

[Papa Schlumpf]

Originally Posted by Cerek My lengthy post was done in response to your own example of reading things into posts that aren't there. Specifically, you opened your post with..... I don't recall anyone stating Republicans never participated in any form of vote tampering. What has been thoroughly discussed (and disputed) is whether Republicans effectively "stole" the last two Presidential elections. All discussions here relating to voter fraud and/or tampering have been in relation to these elections. So your post refuted a claim that had never been made and referenced an election that had never been discussed. In other words, it had very little to do with the topic at hand.

While I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, it *was* relevant to the debate after all - it may not have dealt with the 2000 or 2004 election directly, but I did mention that a former GOP member (who actually did time for his efforts to sabotage the election process) implicated that there's a larger culture of Republican shenanigans during elections. One that didn't just magically appear and disappear with the 2002 elections, either.

Since that was the topic at hand - after all, you and others *were* trying to make a big deal out of the fact that the convicted vote recounters had nothing to do with the GOP directly, thereby arguing that there have been no official accounts of Republican voter fraud - I don't see why it was irrelevant of me to bring it up.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Papa Schlumpf While I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, it *was* relevant to the debate after all - it may not have dealt with the 2000 or 2004 election directly, but I did mention that a former GOP member (who actually did time for his efforts to sabotage the election process) implicated that there's a larger culture of Republican shenanigans during elections. One that didn't just magically appear and disappear with the 2002 elections, either. Since that was the topic at hand - after all, you and others *were* trying to make a big deal out of the fact that the convicted vote recounters had nothing to do with the GOP directly, thereby arguing that there have been no official accounts of Republican voter fraud - I don't see why it was irrelevant of me to bring it up.

Nobody has denied outright that tampering has occurred from both parties. What has been contested is whether this assumed tampering actually gave the election to the wrong candidate. I feel substantial evidence has been provided to show that this is not the case.

I made a "big deal" out of the fact the convicted election officials were NOT associated with the GOP because Wellard had cited this "evidence" a number of times and stated in each post that "Republican party officials were in jail for vote tampering". That is an outright lie that attempts to show guilt on the GP where - in the case cited - none existed.

Have Republicans interfered with or tampered elections? Yes. Have Democrats done the same thing? Yes. Both parties are guilty of election tampering in some form or another. Have these efforts actually changed the outcome of the elections in which tampering occurred? So far, the evidence presented has either been soundly refuted or inconclusive at best.

[ElfBane]

Originally Posted by Yorick Completely wrong Lav. The equivalent of American states in the UK are England, Scotland, Wales etc in the United Kingdom. Or even France Germany and Belgium in the E.U. The American states are sovereign. Each state has it's own counties (or boroughs or parishes depending on where you are) themselves, just like England does. I live in Kings county for example, which is in the State of New York. The Union involved in the USA is similar to what's happening with your European Union. Infringements on states rights are not what the founding fathers envisioned, just as no-one wants to see Germany running all over Czech rights for example.

The analogy of the states making up the USA are like the nations in the EU is not quite accurate. The states in the US are NOT sovereign. They cannot make political treatys, except in a limited way(see below). They cannot mint money or have a militia wholly beholden to the states governor(all official militias are ultimately subject to the PotUS).

While the Constitution of the US may imply that the individual states have 'soverignty', it is not true de facto. That issue was decided by the US Civil War. The revolting slave states attempted to leave the union, but were conquered and forcibly rejoined to the US.

All that being said, I "think" coastal and border states can make limited trade agreements with foreign nations. Whether these agreements could qualify as 'treatys' is subject to interpretation. This is the only way, that I know of, that the individual states can "ape" sovereignty.

[Stratos]

Well, the US is a federation while the EU isn't.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Lavindathar No, I disagree. They are not the same at all. America is your country, Austrailia is a country, England is a country. Just because your states have counties, doesn't mean your state is comparable to our country. Comparing size or population has nothing to do with it.

By Elfbane The analogy of the states making up the USA are like the nations in the EU is not quite accurate. The states in the US are NOT sovereign. They cannot make political treatys, except in a limited way(see below). They cannot mint money or have a militia wholly beholden to the states governor(all official militias are ultimately subject to the PotUS).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Although the term often includes broadly all institutions of government or rule—ancient and modern—the modern state system bears a number of characteristics that were first consolidated beginning in earnest in the 15th century, when the term "state" also acquired its current meaning. Thus the word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems. Within a federal system, the term state also refers to political units, not completely sovereign themselves; however, these systems are subject to the authority of a constitution defining a federal union which is partially or co-sovereign with them. In casual usage, the terms "country," "nation," and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished: Country denotes a geographical area. Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law. State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population.

New York state is sovereign over New York State, and is co-sovereign within the federation. It has it's head of state - the Governor, two legislative houses, it's own judiciary and subdivisions into counties.

That it has entered into union with other states in America doesn't change the issue.

Europe has headed down the path. At the moment the United States of Europe are less unified than the United States of America, but the momentum is towards a similar union. Border controls are gone. Free immigration and common currency now exist. A common foreign policy is a logical next step, just as the American states have this. Europe also has it's own supreme court above the states courts, just as in the USA.

To understand America, especially American history, one must understand the seperateness of the States, as yes, it was an underlying element in the civil war, as rightly or wrongly, the states felt that they could indeed leave the Union, just as you would expect France to be able to leave Europe at the moment. Let's see if France CAN leave the Union if it wishes in 200 years as things may well have changed by then.

Additionally, the federation of the United States, as well being a country that contains states, it also contains NATIONS, such as the Souix Nation and other Amerindian nations.

[Ilander]

In America, we decided whether we were "The United States" or "These United States" long ago, and with the exception of Bob Barr, the former is the answer.

[Lavindathar]

Really love the way you guys obviously are addicted to Wikipedia, reasearching everything before you post.

With so many wiki links, and sources that so many of you provide, its actually hard to tell what your own opinions are nowadays.

I don't care if I'm sometimes wrong, at least its my opinion and what I know, and I don't have a second tab open with a Wiki on it to check every fact and figure.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Lavindathar Really love the way you guys obviously are addicted to Wikipedia, reasearching everything before you post. With so many wiki links, and sources that so many of you provide, its actually hard to tell what your own opinions are nowadays. I don't care if I'm sometimes wrong, at least its my opinion and what I know, and I don't have a second tab open with a Wiki on it to check every fact and figure.

1. I made the argument before I quoted wiki.

2. I posted an independent third party definition of the word I used to support that argument because you were ignoring the first hand evidence I supplied, despite my having spent time in England, USA and Australia.

3. It's standard debating protocol is to define terms.

But let's try some others shall we?

http://geography.about.com/cs/politi...tatenation.htm

While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.
A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.


---------

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country


-------------

http://ardictionary.com/State/14594

State 10

Definition: The bodies that constitute the legislature of a country; as, the States-general of Holland.

State 11

Definition: A form of government which is not monarchial, as a republic.

State 12

Definition: A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation.

State 13

Definition: In the United States, one of the commonwealth, or bodies politic, the people of which make up the body of the nation, and which, under the national constitution, stands in certain specified relations with the national government, and are invested, as commonwealth, with full power in their several spheres over all matters not expressly inhibited.

--------------

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Ilander In America, we decided whether we were "The United States" or "These United States" long ago, and with the exception of Bob Barr, the former is the answer.

Regardless, the United States are not "The United Counties"