Bush certainly has his place in history...next to Harding. Remember that slogan? a "Uniter, not a Divder"? I do. this country is split down the middle, and for the common ill, he's making those divisions firmer.
President Bush's job approval ratings have hit the lowest point of his tenure and the number of Americans with an unfavorable opinion of him has reached 50% for the first time, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.
Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job, according to the poll, while 51% disapprove. That is a four-point drop from Bush's approval rating of July 22-24 and 1% below his previous low of 45% in a poll taken June 24-26. Bush's approval ratings have now been at 50% or lower since mid-March.
20 comments:
Impeach Bush !!!!
Put him on trial in Den Haag together with Saddam - both are war criminals.
I'm deeply concerned about the US and the world - is G.W. the missing link ?
Is he the evidence that there is an evolution ? Will evolution do his duty and make him "disappear" somehow ?
Who knows ? Is there a God ? And if there is a God what does he think about G.W. ? Is it the same God G.W. "uses" in his speeches ?
Where is Nietsche ?
in an election, you can win with 50% of the people plus 1 more. that's all you have to have. This nation has been split down the middle by Bush and that divide has become more ridgid than it has in decades.
as for impeachment...i wish. It doesn't matter what the public will is, the House of Representatives has to bring articles of impeachment (not done on public whim) and the FEALTY in that body will not allow it. Recall Nixon's resignation? that was forced by his own party. that sort of independence and dignity does not exist there now.
Naw, man, you don't even have to have 50% of the poeple...you have to have 50% of the votes. There are WAY fewr votes than people. The less people vote, the more the votes that are cast count. W. is there because he was able to excite people who agreed with him to vote. John Kerry wasn't able to excite a whole lot of people and they still voted because they didn't want W. I just hope next time around Kerry stays out of it and we have a real contender who is a moderate and who is articulate without coming across as elitist or arrogant. Good luck with that.
This "winner takes it all" system doesn't represent the other half of the people which actually sucks big time.
Maybe they should change the whole system into a popular vote , like we have it in Geekosstan.
No, see, the problem is not the system. It is the apathy. Popular votes would be a damn nightmare. The system we have is probably the best on the planet...and it would be great if people would participate. Years from now technology with most likely make it easier to participate, but it's actually not hard now.
The system doesn't represent the ones that don't participate. If everyone voted the political landscape would be VASTLY different, but as it is, why should politicians worry about what people who don't vote think? It's like redesigning your store to accomodate the window shoppers. Screw that, they are going to take care of the paying customers first. If that sounds unfair...tough. Voting is free.
I think the system is far from perfect. So let's say: Party A gets 51% and Party B gets 49%. All the votes for Party B are simply lost ...right ?
So about 50% of the people who VOTED are simply not represented.
I think that is not perfect , I think that is a nightmare.
Dr. Wagner is right.
At any rate, those are the rules. changing them would be an impossibility (in Pres. elections). you have to play by those rules and win or don't play at all.
OK, Party A gets 51% and Party B gets 49%...what do you want party B to get? A second place ribbon? What party B gets is a close race and a mindful elected body who realize that a few votes could swing the tide the other way so they better not do anything radical or extreme or they will risk losing the seat next time around.
Popular vote just creates too many possible recount nightmares. Does teh margin of victory stay the same? Half plus one? Someone could go only to New York, LA, Chicago and Houston and win the election. It means that the elected officials work on issues that only benefit the larger population centers and the middle american voice goes unheard.
But in our system we have intentionally spread the votes across the country and made each state valuable in their own right. We maintain that value across the board and weight it so that smaller states have a voice and politicians risk much by ignoring them.
I never said our system was perfect, but I did say it is the best on the planet and it is.
you ever see how Louisiana does their elections? jesus. no primary. on a saturday. all the dems and all the GOP run at the same time, same race. THEN it is a runoff among the top 2, no matter who they may be. from a political/strategy standpoint--a nightmare.
I like that it is on a Saturday. I think being on a workday cutsdown on the turnout, but of course we'll never know.
Well we have a popular vote here since 1949 we never had any recount at all - nor did we have a recount nightmare.
See here it works like this:
There are about 600 available seats, if Party A gets a guy in one of the about 600 voting districts enough votes he gets a seat and so on.
Basically what happens at the end of the day seats are "distributed" among all those who manage to direct candidates and where the party in the overall count gets more then 5%.
So maybe a small minority with 6% gets like 2 seats out of 600 - and they are represented. They can vote for laws and they are allowed in the constitutional meeting to vote for the Kanzler.
So I think the System is far better and I don't understand how a country which has sent a man to the moon isn't able to count some stupid votes.
OK, see what your system lacks is regional accountability. If there are 600 seats and you dole them out proportional to the vote then ALL of the seats could be held by people from the same area of the country. So, again you fall back to population centers which disenfranchizes all the regions of the country where there are no big cities.
Our system doesn't say that everyone should get a seat at the table, we reserve that for the ones who have enough people behind them to support their point of view.
I'm curious about the country that you are using in the example? Is it Eastern European? How long has it been a democracy?
first off, the Legislature is somewhat similar (At least the House of Representatives) to what you describe.
as for recounts, i'm well certain that local races in Germany have had recounts before. the difference is that in florida, when it happened, Bush sued to STOP the recount. The Supreme Court ruled to stop the count and he won. if the recount had continued he (likely) would have lost. Bush wanted the first count to stick rather than risk losing on a recount.
so...basically, it has nothing to do with being able to correctly count and everything to do with whether the votes were recounted at all.
Well I gave you already a hint Dr. Wagner ... I said since 1949.
Well once in a while the election districts are re-organized to reflect the number of people who live there.
So for example the election district in a rural area might be bigger, because they have a lesser population density. In major cities the districts are usually smaller, because they have a higher population density.
And not EVERYONE get's a seat , the party also needs to get over 5% in the average.
But I cannot explain it here in detail, the system is a bit complex I have to admit.
your system sounds like our house of representatives with a mechanism that allows small parties a seat at the table if they get enough votes.
that extra bit is not something we provide for. if you win your local election, you get the seat...regardless of party. This however is nearly impossible if you aren't one of the 2 major parties.
additionally, this is NOT how we elect a president or a Senate, which are entirely different matters.
Well a kind of. We also have two "houses" if you want to call it like this.
We have a president but he has a different role , not like the US president. Basically the Kanzler is leading the "pack". Some laws have to go through the Bundesrat , which represents the states.
Right now it looks like we have five different parties who will get seats when the election comes up in September.
But as I said before: this is only a brief description of the system.
I think the biggest drawback, besides the lack of people voting, is the two major parties' strangle hold on the elections. In fact, I imagine much of the apathy is a direct result of people feeling that the two parties do not reflect their views, so they simply do not vote. Which is a shame.
How do you elect the president? Is it direct as well? Whoever gets the most votes is the winner? Do they need a majority? Plurality?
actually, i believe it is a Chancellor.
The people elect the represantatives to the German Bundestag. They elect the Chancellor.
Those elections take place every 4 years. The elections for the President take place every 5 years. The President is elected from the Bundestag with a 2/3 majority.
But the Chancellor points out in which direction the politic is going, depending on how many votes he has when it comes to make decisissions.
Post a Comment