Travel News - No USA President - Queen Elizabeth Steps In To Take Charge!

This post has got absolutely no business being here, but it was emailed to me from an English friend, and I thought it was funny. In the recent sad absence of DOC posting REAL news items here, thought I'd fill out the Forum a bit. Sorry for being totally off topic! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:


1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium”. Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary”. Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up “interspersed”.

2. There is no such thing as “US English”. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn’t that hard.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”, but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American “football”. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American “football” is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays “American” football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American “football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. “Merde” is French for “sh!t”.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called “Indecisive Day”.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us crazy.

Thank you for your cooperation. Have A Nice Day y'all.

------------------
~ Glen ~

Glen-

This must be making the rounds. I got it in mail yesterday from a British friend in Melbourne http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Beloved citizens,

In a recent discovery, it has been confirmed that I am 574th in line to the throne (despite my German heritage -- My Grandmother, the former Grace Elizabeth Churchill, married my German grandfather in the early part of the last century). As such, our beloved Queen hath bestowed on me the title of Governor of the American Colonies. The Queen, clad in shimmering samite, betrothed this beloved honor to me in a glorious ceremony before numerous right honorable gentlemen of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

My first act as the new Governor will be to examine this aviation delay problem that has troubled the Colonial skies over the last 30 years or so.

Please wish me Godspeed...


LORD O'HARE of CHICAGO
E II R
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Well, your highness, since travel can often be a "royal" pain, we, your loyal subjects, await your solution to the problem!

OK trivia buffs:

Who was the last member of the Royal Family to be appointed either Governor-General of a Commonwealth country or Governor of a British Dependent Territory?

Bonus point: One member of the Royal Family has been the spouse of a Governor-General or Governor. Who?

AC*SE

And one member of the Royal Family was a Governor-General or Governor. Who? Where?

Actually, more than one has. My first question is simply who was the last one. Any takers?

Glen....This REVOCATION even flew around NZ e-mails yesterday. I got brave enough to send it to a Missouri mate who has;
(a) a reasonably thick skin
(b) a new Volkswagon Passat (see Rule 9)
His reply, "I love it."
By now it'll be all around Missouri too.

I was watching a CNN news rundown on this Mickey Mouse election. Even CNN mentioned this very "Revocation Of Independence" e-mail had been circulating around the world! They were interviewing a journalist on ITN UK who was laughing about what a total laughing stock the USA had become over this mess.

The world's allegedly leading democracy voting partly with lever machines from the war era, and partly with hole punches that sometimes work, sometimes don't, and sometimes partially and on a voting form designed by a 16 year old kid. If this mess happened in Cambodia or Nicaragua, the USA would have sent down "observers" like Jimmy Carter to show em how it was done in the "big smoke"!

With today's Court ruling, I am laughing even harder! I think they should just appoint Fidel Castro to oversee the voting count. He is probably about as unbiased as many Bush appointed officals in a state with Jeb Bush as Governor. Fidel will then miraculously become your next USA President. If he moves the White House to Miami, he will not even need to learn a new language. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-17-2000).]

I have pessimistically assumed that the issue will not be settled until after my office Christmas party (December 8) and am encouraging the singers among my co-workers to practice this lyric for the occasion. It is a Law Lord original. Permission is granted for anyone with that inclination to serenade co-workers, passers-by, and asylum attendants.

The Perfect Leader
(to the tune of “The Perfect Nanny,” from Mary Poppins)

"Law Lord"
November 2000


If you want to lead our nation
Stop this silly litigation
You are both grownups, act your age
Stay calm, don’t rage

We weren’t thrilled to nominate you
Now we have begun to scorn and hate you
Why, when the White House is within your reach
Do you act like juveniles in West Palm Beach?

Whomever of you’s not the man in
First place, don’t blame Nader or Buchanan
No matter if the winner is Bush or Gore
We’ll find someone better in two thousand four

Republicans and Democrats
All tell you
Don’t be spoiled brats.

AC*SE ... Louie Mountbatten in Burma?

Wrong Thread

[This message has been edited by FQTV (edited 11-18-2000).]

Duke of Windsor/Bahamas?

By the way (re rule 6), I watched the USA thrash Canada in the Emerging Nations Rugby League World Cup last Tuesday. Not a bad side, although somewhat bolstered by the Aussies, Kiwis and Pacific Islanders with American grandparents http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif [USA 52 - Canada 10, crowd 300, 1 dog].

Revoking our independence? Will that work? Look at the luck they've had in Ireland for crying out loud. Thought I'd readily give up all of the Einsteins in Florida that can't seem to understand a ballot or are too weak to punch a hole in a piece of paper.

AAAHHH Democracy. The future leader of the free world decided by a few brain dead senior citizens in Florida who punched the wrong box. What a systemm!

It amuses me that the Queen's subjects, who vote for neither their Head of State nor their Head of Government, find the situation surrounding our Presidential election so funny. The only reason this never happened before is that the closeness of the result in individual states never mattered before. In this instance, it so happens that one state's results will decide the election, and the vote in that state is so close that the result is in dispute.

It would be convenient for me to criticise the voting system in Florida, but each state has the right to set its own procedures, and they all vigorously protect their independence in this regard. There are procedures for settling each and every aspect of the dispute, and, in time, the appropriate courts will rule, and everybody will accept the result.

By the way, the British monarch at the time was not inclined to regard favorably the 13 Colonies' assertion of independence 224 years ago, and his attitude turned out to be about as relevant as Her Royal Highness' is now.

I have a lot of suggestions for improvements to the British Parliament (in one house of which Strom Thurmond would be considered a youngster), British cooking, British pubs, British driving rules, and British television, but I accept them all as they are, however misguided, since I learned a long time ago to recognize my opinions about all of the above as fundamentally inconsequential. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Hey Rich - From our dear old BBC:

The latest claim is that the Democrats have been eating the chads

!

James:

A local Florida judge claims that someone is selling the chads on E-Bay.

If you're anywhere near Heathrow tomorrow night, you could come by the Sheraton ~2300 for a pint.

Rich

(coincidentally, another friend of mine in the U.K., also named James, sent me the same e-mail that ozstamps posted.)

I'm afraid I won't be Rich, but thanks for the offer. I will probably be glued to CNN http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-19-2000).]

My wife, who is British, suggested that perhaps Maggie Thatcher (Old Ironbottoms) should take over the helm until this mess is completely sorted out. After all, look what she did in the Fauklands.

bj-21.

The correct answer is HRH The Duke of Gloucester, who was Governor General of the Commonweath of Australia from 1945-1947.

(Shame on you, ozstamps. Missed on of your own GG's.)

The other two Royal GG's have been HRH the Duke of Connaught, who was Governor General of Canada from 1911-1916, and HRH the Duke of Windsor, who was Governor General of the Bahamas from 1941-1945.

(Mountbatten was not a member of the Royal Family, so his term as Viceroy of India does not count)

The answer to the bonus question was HRH Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne (later Duchess of Argyll), who was the wife of the Governor General of Canada from 1878-1883.

RichG: Since when do you vote for your Head of Government any more than we do?

Finally, a solution to the Open Skies dillema! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
I guess we´ll now be able to enjoy BA sleeper beds on redeye transcon flights http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif.
Yonatan

The British taking over again. Sorry folks but if I remember my History correctly who was the King at the time of Independence?? Got it?? and where did George Washington originate from?? Got it. So Who's German and who's British!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I couldn't resist adding my two cents...

The source isn't known but it may get a grin somewhere...

--------------------------------
Dr. Seuss goes to Florida

Can we count them with our nose?
Can we count them with our toes?
Should we count them with a band?
Should we count them all by hand?
If I do not like the count,
I will simply throw them out!

I will not let this vote count stand
I do not like them, AL GORE I am!

Can we change these numbers here?
Can we change them, calm my fears?
What do you mean, Dubya has won?
This is not fair, this is not fun
Lets count them upside down this time
Lets count until the state is mine!

I will not let this VOTE count stand!
I do not like it, AL GORE I am!

I'm really ticked, I'm in a snit!
You have not heard the last of it!
I'll count the ballots one by one
And hold each one up to the sun!
I'll count, recount, and count some more!
You'll grow to hate this little chore

But I will not, cannot let this vote count stand!
I do not like it, Al Gore I am!

I won't leave office, I'm stayin' here!
I've glued my desk chair to my rear!
Tipper, Hillary, and Bubba too,
all telling me that I should sue!
We find the Electoral College vile!
RECOUNT the votes until I smile!

We do not want this vote to stand!
We do not like it, AL GORE I am!

How shall we count this ballot box?
Let's count it standing in our socks!
Shall we count this one in a tree?
And who shall count it, you or me?
We cannot, cannot count enough!
We must not stop, we must be tough!

I do not want this vote to stand!
I do not like it AL GORE I am!

I've counted till my fingers bleed!
And still can't fulfill my counting need!
I'll count the tiles on the floor!
I'll count, and count, and count some more!
And I will not say that I am done!
Until the counting says I've won!

I will not let this vote count stand!
I do not like it, AL GORE I am!

What's that? What? What are you trying to say?
You think the current count should stay?
You do not like my counting scheme?
It makes you tense, gives you bad dreams?
Foolish people, you're wrong you'll see!
You're only care should be for me!

I WILL NOT LET THIS VOTE COUNT STAND!
I DO NOT LIKE IT. AND AL GORE I AM!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

How the Grinch stole the Election?

The who's down in Florida liked Elections a lot,
But the Grinch, who lived in the Beltway, did not ...

AC*SE:

As I guess you know, in the U.S., the President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government.

Also in the U.S., while the people do not vote directly for President, through the Electoral College, the result is almost always the same, since there have only been 3 cases in 224 years where the popular vote did not decide the Presidency (the current situation excluded).

In the British system, and, I think, the Canadian one, the head of the majority party becomes the Prime Minister. So the public, while they may vote for their local M.P. with the purpose of getting one party's head as P.M., as opposed to the other, has no role whatever in selecting who that party's head is. There really is no way for a member of a party, no matter how senior, to campaign for, or be "elected" P.M., without first becoming head of a party. On the other hand, in the United States, there can be, and usually are, multiple candidates for President from each party, and the public gets to put in its 2 cents worth through primary elections. Also, while the Convention of each party could theoretically do what it wants, it has been over 30 years since a candidate was nominated by a party who was not the clear choice of party members voting in primaries.

So that is why I think it is the case that the U.S. President comes closer to being popularly elected than the British & Canadian Heads of Government.

The only major countries that come to mind which actually elect a Head of State OR Government directly are France and Italy.

CNN newsflash as I speak ............

CHAD has been elected USA President ... seems CHAD got more votes than anyone else in Florida. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

AC*SE. Well that does suprise me about Gloucester. They even issued a set of 3 stamps in 1945 to commemorate this "event", so I am doubly embarrassed as I've handled those stamps in my hands 1000s of times! I thought it was due to them visiting, and never read what was printed on the darn things.

Are you sure about this bit:

Mountbatten was not a member of the Royal Family.

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-20-2000).]

Hasn't anybody noticed that almost as many US voters DIDN'T vote as the combined totals for Bushgore? How representative will the successful candidate (whoever/whenever) be, having achieved barely a quarter of the national electorate?

At least the UK with all its faults manages to drag out around 2/3 of the electorate for parliamentary elections, and we too usually know the result the same or the next day.

Some derive comfort in having a non-political head of state. At least we know who that will be in January, and it is sad that after two weeks of counting, the US still doesn't know who will be up there.

... and add Germany to the list of countries who elect heads of state - they elect their president.

Voting in Australia is compulsory under law. For all referendums, Federal, State, even local Council elections. Has been for decades. You are fined if you do not vote. Voter turnout is thus high.

And CHAD has never won, as punching holes in weird bits of paper is not the system here. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

As a UK voter, I would argue that the majority of the electorate do in fact vote for a party based on it's manifesto and leadership, rather than the individual who is your local candidate. In fact many people probably can't even name the person who is MP in their constituency. As for Lord Mountbatten - as cousin to the Queen - that is most likely to be defined as Royal.

Anyhow - let's return this thread to humour (note the spelling please new subjects) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Wotz with thiz deliteful pommie cr!p about US spelin? We mericanz like usin lotz of zzzzzzzz wher they nevr exist, and we luv to shortn evry wud pozzible. An mke up hole new onezzz.

(I think Arturo was born from a thread such as this?) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

1. Is not the relation of Mountbatten to the Queen through marriage? And does that not make the connection of other Mountbattens somewhat tenuous?

2. Voting is a privilege, a right, even a duty, but if you force people to vote, you may regret the result.

3. If you want to see high voter turnout, lets please approve the re-vote in Palm Beach County.


[This message has been edited by RichG (edited 11-21-2000).]

So 99.3% then re-vote in FL and you are still stuck with the dork elected by the 42% or whatever who turned up in Alabama cos it was raining???? And this is DEMOCRACY in action???? C'mon!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum101/HTML/001351.html



------------------
~ Glen ~

Is it just me, or do we have the makings of a great book title here? I'm thinking...

"The Hanging CHAD of Broward County"

Sounds like something by John Berendt... We could have Robert Redford or Clint Eastwood direct the movie...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Earl Mounbatten is actually related by blood. But he is too distantly related to qualify as being of, "the Blood Royal." He was born HSH Prince Louis Francis of Battenberg. His maternal grandmother was Princess Alice, Queen Victoria's second daughter. As such, he is the Queen's third cousin, once removed.

By convention, however, the children of the Sovreign's daughters are not royal. Hence the Princess Royal's children, Peter and Zara Phillips, hold no courtesy titles, unlike their cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.

Further, only the grandchildren of the Sovreign are Royal, great-granchildren are not. So while the present Duke of Gloucester and his brother were both princes (Grandson's of George V), the Duke's daughters are not princesses.

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Voting in Australia is compulsory under law. For all referendums, Federal, State, even local Council elections. ... You are fined if you do not vote.

Dictatorial "Democracy"?!? ROFLMAO!!!!

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-21-2000).]

Well, it has the social policy benefit of underscoring the importance of participation. IMO, voting is not a privilege of citizenship--it is an obligation. Australian law underscores that obligation.

If you don't want to vote, just spoil your ballot. But at least you have made your electoral statement.

Meanwhile, of course, no US/Canadian/British government would ever have the courage to impelement true, universal suffrage, because of the potential risk to the present electoral balance. But then again, maybe I am being too cynical.

The act of voting is not an obligation if it's coerced. True freedom means free of force.

Forgive me if this is a little too long, but this thread reminds me for some reason of Act 3 of ...The Holy Grail. Enjoy! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

ARTHUR: Old woman!

DENNIS: Man!

ARTHUR: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?

DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.

ARTHUR: What?

DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!

ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.

DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.

ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'

DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?

ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind you looked--

DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!

ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...

DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! ....If there's ever going to be any progress--

WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?

ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?

WOMAN: King of the who?

ARTHUR: The Britons.

WOMAN: Who are the Britons?

ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.

WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.

DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

WOMAN: No one lives there.

ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?

WOMAN: We don't have a lord.

ARTHUR: What?

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

ARTHUR: Yes.

DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

ARTHUR: Yes, I see.

DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! --- HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh?.... That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

Agreed, essxjay! True freedom also means having choices. Examples of no choice or limited freedom:

Communist Albania, when Enver Hoxha would routinely receive 99.997% or so of the vote, running unopposed;
New York's medieval election laws which prohibit its citizens from running for the Senate without first getting the signatures of thousands of their neighbors;
Major parties having a stranglehold on the path to the ballot for state offices in many states;
No airline being permitted to welcome smokers as a marketing decision (here's a topic for a flame war!)

Freedom should include the freedom not to participate. If someone really doesn't care whether Bush or Gore (or one of the et ceteras) is our next President, why force him/her to vote, as the vote would be random.



------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Voting in Australia is compulsory under law. For all referendums, Federal, State, even local Council elections. ... You are fined if you do not vote.

Dictatorial "Democracy"?!? ROFLMAO

essxjay .. umm - I think it had more to do with domocracy and the will of the MAJORITY than the USA "voting" system as was for a long time applied in the Deep South. Y'all remember that one surely??

At least I get to write "Get N!icked" on my ballot paper if I wish. The vote is thus informal, but I had the secret ballot choice to make it thus. And at least it ensures the TRUE will of the vast majority of the country is counted - one way or the other. I suspect not even you could argue that used to happen in Mississippi or Alabama etc. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-21-2000).]

I'm with RichG et. al.

I view voting as a PERSONAL obligation (bordering on Sacrament) - after I become familiar enough to form opinions.

But I DO NOT want to see voting easier, let alone required. Heck, I'd like to see a test administered before you get a ballot!

The so-called "disenfranchisement" of voters in FL is really little more than electoral Darwinism. If you are too stupid to follow written directions and/or ask for help, you have no one but yourself to blame when your voice is ignored.

It drives me nuts to think that millions of lives (including some family members) were lost defending our democracy (OK, technically a Republic) and most voters are choosing a candidate based on feelings and sound-bites.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Forget CHAD .. looks like after today's court decision that INDENT will win the Presidency. What if the scrutineers all have long nails? That is a dark day for democracy when a scrutineer with her nail cunningly filed by Gore operatives to make an impression like a partial CHAD can win the day.

I still think Fidel should have a say in all this. It is only fair. He is a near neighbour, and being nice to your neighbour is this festive season is only polite. And why not ask Ross Perot to stand in temporarily? He looks like a nice enough guy.

------------------
~ Glen ~

A cartoon in the Age, the Melbourne paper shows some of our pollies here in Australia, looking at the headlines: the Prime Minister says "Our system's better - don't do democracy till you've got the numbers". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Originally posted by ozstamps:
At least I get to write "Get N!icked" on my ballot paper if I wish.

As can I. But I don't since it's not constructive. However, I can opt to write-in when I choose to. What's your point? And please answer this directly. I'd really like to know what you have to say specifically.

The vote is thus informal, but I had the secret ballot choice to make it thus.

Our ballots are secret. What do you mean by the term 'informal'? You need to clarify if you want to carry on a relevant discussion.

And at least it ensures the TRUE will of the vast majority of the country is counted - one way or the other.

You clearly do not understand - nor should you, having not grown up in a representative republic - the precedent of the electoral process. If you'd like, we can take this part of the discussion offline where it would be more appropriate and less burdensome to the majority here. But please rethink the wording of your posts on issues of which you do not have complete comprehension of the facts to discuss their merits in depth.

I suspect not even you could argue that used to happen in Mississippi or Alabama etc. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

That 'what' used to happen in MS or AL? I could form a reply if you were less oblique in your reference. My best inference is that you're talking about the right of blacks to vote? Please be specific and give factual examples.

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-22-2000).]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If you don't comprehend what an informal ballot is, and you yearn for a Law career, and do not know what used to happen in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana at election time etc, we are wasting a lot of bandwidth here unnecessarily.

If you do not feel a country that has almost 100% voter turnout is representative, and you are about to be governed by a handful of half witted maybe votes from Florida seniors, and believe that is a smarter, better system, you are entitled to your (wacky) opinion.

Go for CHAD. He is your safe choice. It is the American way. Chad will at least (well possibly) have an IQ approximating that of Ronald Reagan. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

------------------
~ Glen ~




[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-22-2000).]

Ozstamps, 100% turnout ain't everything. Under communist rule, Albania, USSR, and Romania regularly got 99% turnout, and Albania got 99.994% turnout or something like that -- yet no one ever confused them with a real republic or representative government.

------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

What a fatuous comment.

You cannot compare the coerced 100% turnout in a one party state, with Australia's legal obligation to participate in a free and fair vote.

Get off your high horse. It has nothing to do with freedom. It's sheer civic laziness on the part of a vast number of voters. And not just Americans. I am equally scathing in my view of Canadians who fail to exercise their suffrage. However, it seems more hypocritical when it happens in the US.

Comprehension of a concept follows only when terms are defined. I specifically asked for clarification of the phrase 'informal ballot', of which I am unfamilar and for which I'm attacked ad hominem. A cheap tactic, one that any decent attorney would never need to use.

At least I have the balls to admit when I don't know something.


[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-22-2000).]

Not fatuous at all, AC*SE, but I may not have made my point clear. Voting is IMHO not good in itself unless the person voting has some understanding of the people and issues being voted on. There's nothing civic about a vote from an uninformed and uncaring voter.

Certainly the high turnout in Australia is good, IF it is the result of informed voters who want to vote. But as I understand it (Ozstamps, correct me if I'm wrong), the Australian voters vote because the government can punish them if they don't, similarly to the old Albania.

Yes, they have a choice of candidates, unlike Albanians under Hoxha. I don't mean to say that the two governments are identical or that Australia is a repressive regime of the Albanian sort. But what business does a government have in forcing its citizens -- its bosses -- to make a choice, and refusing to allow them to make a statement by silence?

More than 80% of the registered voters in my area, and essxjay's, voted in this election, not because the government forced them to, but because the government made it easy to vote and the election was interesting and competitive. (We have universal vote-by-mail in this state.) I suspect that a fair number of the 18% who didn't vote, didn't vote because Messrs. Bush and Gore didn't give them any reason to vote.


------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

[This message has been edited by Law Lord (edited 11-22-2000).]

Look, say what you want, but America is the first and longest true democracy (well, republic, REALLY). We simply are the oldest and best. We will weather this storm, and, as always, be the stronger for it.

I trust and respect not only our executive, but also our representative AND our judicial, no matter who "prevails." A sane and calm revolution every four years. That's what makes and keeps America stable and strong.

I LOVE it!!!

[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 11-22-2000).]

Law Lord - I am very interested by the way this election was conducted in Oregon and I suspect that under the right conditions, mail-in elections are a good thing. What precuations were taken to make sure that each person could only vote once while retaining a secret ballot?

essxjay, on the subject of clarity, I am not sure what

You clearly do not understand - nor should you, having not grown up in a representative republic - the precedent of the electoral process.

means. Specifically, what do you mean by 'representative republic' and 'the precedent of the electoral process', and what does having grown up in one have to do with understanding the other?

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-22-2000).]

James, each registered voter is sent a ballot in the mail. (In my county the ballot is more confusing than the West Palm Beach ballot, because no names appear on the punch cards, only numbers, and you have to match the number to who you want to vote for, which is in a separate book.)

I receive my ballot, punch the right chads, and stick the ballot in the official envelope. I then seal that envelope inside another envelope which has a sticker with my name and registration data. I sign that outer envelope, and mail it. The county compares at least some of the signatures with registration cards -- it might compare all of the signatures.

If I spoil my ballot then I have to go to the county and get another one.

I could vote twice as follows: (1) by taking someone else's ballot and signing their name on the envelope (but the signatures won't match), or by getting an "emergency ballot" from the county in case I think my regular ballot won't make it back in time. If I do that, though, the county sets my emergency ballot aside until election day, and counts it only if it doesn't receive my regular ballot. So it's not impossible to vote twice, but it's not so easy either.

------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

Thanks Law Lord - wasn't (isn't) there some suggestion that some people voted in more than one county in Oregon? I assume the secrecy of the ballot is assured by the inner envelopes being placed randomly in a pile after the outer envelope has been verified and separated?

Assuming you are doing at this voting at home LawLord:

I receive my ballot, punch the right chads, and stick the ballot in the official envelope. I then seal that envelope inside another envelope which has a sticker with my name and registration data. I sign that outer envelope, and mail it.

Do you use a neat hole punch from Office Depot etc, (and how many houses in Oregon have one of those in the kitchen!) or push a hole with a pen through the candidate check box you wish to vote for etc?

Is there any reason the mighty USA can't find a machine to read an "x" marked in the applicable box? I just am surprised for postal voting that system is not used.

And essexjay ..... congratulations it seems are in order for the operation? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif Was it painful Samantha? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


http://pcwi200.uni-muenster.de/flyertalk/P1010028.jpg (Mizu & Essxjay)

At least I have the balls to admit when I don't know something.

------------------
~ Glen ~



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-22-2000).]

Ozstamps,

Yes, I do this at home -- the ballots are mailed to our voting addresses which are almost always our residences and not work addresses.

The ballots come pre-perforated so a sharp pencil or ballpoint pen is enough to perform the chadectomy. Each county with machine voting can choose its own system (so we could have 3600 different voting systems in the country - support your local government).

In my former county, the ballots had ovals to be blackened or bluened, like a multiple-choice test. A machine then read the ballots optically. I think the problem was that, even with clear directions to blacken the oval, a fair number of voters make x'es or checkmarks which the machine could not read as well. Some undoubtedly use light colors that the machine can't read.

Federal government agencies fund the major campaigns for President, and regulate contributions, but otherwise have little involvement in the presidential election and no involvement in local elections except to investigate vote fraud and bribery. State governments decide who's on the ballot. Perhaps the Australian election system is more national?

------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

James,

Yes, there was some suggestion that a few people voted in more than one county. I think it was mostly unintentional; someone moves, reregisters, and might receive two ballots instead of one. Counties are supposed to pass the word along to other counties to cancel registrations of people who move and reregister, but the system isn't perfect. However, I haven't seen any local article suggesting that more than a handful of people were deliberately registering twice and hoping to snaffle two ballots that way.

You're right about the two envelopes - the point is to have the inner envelope not traced to a particular voter, so the inner envelopes are lumped together before being opened.

Ozstamp, your knowledge of anything US (politics, culture, etc except for stamps) is probably as good as most American's knowledge of Australia, which is to say not much. Therefore, I am not bothered by your comments at all because I do not take them all that seriously. (I don't think you do either.)

So here's my superflous comment in response to yours: rather then lettting Fidel have a say or ask Ross Perot (my former boss) to stand in temporarily, as you suggested, I say Ross Perot, the former Navy man, should take on another role. Perhaps he can advise the US' Asia Pacific Fleet in taking over Australia? It would be a good military training/exercise (although I do hope everything is done peacefully). US can certainly use more land (to build more prisons?) and more natrual resources. I'd love the idea of LAX-SYD being a "domestic" flight! New Zealland is next... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

LawLord Wow what an "interesting" system. No wonder recounts can take weeks!

The Federal Election for the House Of Representatives here sees ONE (1) (Uno) single sided simple ballot paper printed by the Electoral Commissioner. No accompanying books or manuals, floppy discs,CD roms, or slide rules. No Office Depot type supply of envelopes either. Ballot paper is the same size nationally. On the same colour paper. No sharp pins, forks, hole punchers, chainsaws, or voodoo dolls are needed. Just a pencil to mark it. "1" "2" "3".

I knew it sounded far too simple to be true, and that there had to be a better, fairer, less complicated, easy to follow way. The US system has broadened my mind. I am writing to the Electoral Commssioner right now, with my great new idea as to how he can make his job a LOT simpler next time. When he stops laughing, dries his eyes, and gets up off the floor, I'll let you know his response. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-22-2000).]

NEWS FLASH ... FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT????


Morning news here in UK reports that PREGNANT CHAD'S will decide the Presidency. Wow. Suckling in the White House? Strollers aboard Air Force One? Gerber at State Dinners? And the next generation of Monicas getting frustrated?

Ozstamps, do you hold elections for other offices on a different ballot? My ballot, a single card with those confusing numbers, recorded my vote for President and Vice President(technically for seven presidential electors), U.S. Representative, Oregon secretary of state, Oregon attorney general, state senator, state representative, two county commissioners, mayor and councilors of my city, ten or twelve judgeships, more than 20 ballot measures (proposals to change the state constitution or enact new state laws), and an assortment of minor offices. If you have one national ballot, then how and when do you elect local officials?

Originally posted by james:
Thanks Law Lord - wasn't (isn't) there some suggestion that some people voted in more than one county in Oregon? I assume the secrecy of the ballot is assured by the inner envelopes being placed randomly in a pile after the outer envelope has been verified and separated?

There certainly was a suggestion made of duplicate voting across counties, but in the end it was really a media red herring: exceptions rather than the rule.

Only the county in which a voter last registered was counted. The outer envelope is removed after it has reached the voter's county of residence. The return address sticker contains the latest data of the voter. Thusly, if a voter from say, Wasco County, returned their ballot to Multnomah County (where they might conceivably commute to work), their ballot would be forwarded to their county of residence for tabulation.

Regarding your previous post james, from 11/22, asking for clarification on some terms ... would you mind if I answered tomorrow? It's been a long day at the office, further lengthened by some post-office hours, pre-holiday well-wishing to the point where I don't think I can stay awake much longer to give you a proper reply. Grant me a delay, won't you? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-23-2000).]

Of course, and thank you both http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Grant me a delay, won't you?


Yes, your honour.

------------------
~ Glen ~

Not to redirect to the humor of this thread, but here is a forwarded response to QEII.

Revocation Of Independence - a yank's response

Thank you very much for alerting us as to our revised national status. We
are fortunate that the news reached us as we had worried that your e-mail
systems were waterlogged. Some commentary as follows:

The involvement of QE 2 very welcome, I imagine for both Her Majesty and our
country. We realize (realise for you) that she has had precious little to do
as the Empire has continued to dwindle. That, combined with a marked
reduction in "Society Funerals" over which she could preside (and which
caused her to top her daughter in law so she could dress up for one) has
left Ma'am's workload quite light. We could offer her the chance to open
quite a few more hospitals because we aren't closing them nearly as quickly
as you are in the UK. Also, we are keen to retain Utah because that is the
only state in the Union where polygamy is legal and even encouraged.

Prime Minister Blair will fit in nicely as well owing to his obviously
intact sex drive as evidenced by Cherie's delivery. He clearly finds
political power an aphrodisiac and that is in keeping with the current
occupant of the Oval Office. Perhaps this will lead to the NHS prescribing
running for office as an antidote for erectile dysfunction.

We can't thank you enough for disbanding the Senate and Congress although it
will leave people like the former Goldman Sachs CEO and now US Senator from
New Jersey struggling for hobbies upon which they can blow $60,000,000. The
Aga Khan will be despondent at the potential impact on the thoroughbred
market.

Turning to your rules:

1. I looked up "revocation". It was defined as something that Lloyds names
in the 1980's wish had happened to the underwriting priviledges of many
Lloyds underwriters. I then looked up "aluminium" and it said that was the
primary construction material of the current residences of those same
names.You are right about the rampant mis-use of the words "like" and "you
know" and we will endeavour to adopt the proper British phraseology with
conversations to now include "you lot", "sodding", "awright?" and worst of
all, the continual reference to anything even marginally good as being
"brilliant".

2. We will alert Mr. Gates as to the misunderstanding regarding US English.
I suspect that the fact that one of his subdivisions has a higher market cap
than the GNP of the national source of the criticism will dampen his
disappointment at getting it wrong.

3. We will try to do better in deciphering the differences between English
and Australian accents. I have often sought opportunities to expose my
fellow Americans to the differences whenever Aussies and Brits are present
at the same time. As you can imagine, that generally happens at Rugby
matches, which result in the Aussies being quite loud and the British coming
across as unintelligible (owing much to all the grass and mud in their
mouths).

"So", my friends say, "the Australian accents are the ones that we hear when
Brits are losing at Rugby?". "Yes", I reply, "they are Aussies.... or
Kiwi's..... or
Reeboks".

One need not speculate as to why England welcomed Italy. We will obtain
several hours of Jonathan Woss tapes to try and master the eloquence of the
beautiful English language as it was meant to be and wevert to you with the
wesults of our efforts.

4. I suppose as long there is imagination in cinema, anything is possible.
In exchange for keeping Utah, we agree.

5. We will learn "God Save the Queen" as a matter of urgency as we will need
to know it for Englands' international matches. Please advise if we also
have to adopt the English habit of rampaging through European streets,
drinking 'till we chuck up and generally razing towns to the ground before
each feeble exhibition of "football". If we have to, we will.

6. Apologies for the American football which we will suspend immediately but
will presume that the Crown has another avenue of emplyment for 375 pound
(27 stones for you) guys named Bubba and Jo Bob. We were quite happy getting
them off of the street but it's your call.

We greatly look forward to playing "real" football and, because of the
supporter requirements as mentioned above, becoming ardent supporters. Why,
just the other day a deranged guy came up behind a 28 year old girl on
Madison Avenue at noon and plunged a six pound brick into her skull. We
clearly have a potential talent pool for becoming good football supporters
in the true British tradition.

In order to improve our "football" playing skills, we will look forward to
receiving tapes of the French national team who, as I recall, won the World
Cup. That was, of course, a fluke and Euro 2000 wasn't as important as the
World Cup so didn't mean much anyway. English and French consider themselves
as one people, especially in sports, so we know that you shared in both of
those celebrations.

In anticipation of "proper football" becoming our new national sport, I have
been teaching my compatriots the key analytical phrases following an English
football game:

a) "We was robbed!"
or
b) "We was unlucky!"

We will also try to stay abreast of the progress of the English national
team through the interviews granted by the new English coach; Sven-Goran
Eriksson.

To the last paragraph of your sixth point; fine! Only a bunch of childhood
molested public school poofs would offer as insult or penalty, the
opportunity to engage in full contact sports with girls, opting instead to
jump into a pile of guys with deformed ears in the hope that one or several
will grab your scrotum and yank on it really, really hard. On this we will
agree to maintain our separate traditions.

7. It is peculiar that a message emanating from a nation that still
treasures the notion of several bottles of rouge at lunch would suggest
jeopardizing (jeopardising) St. Emillion. And nobody here thinks ill of
Russians anymore, we just hope they are better at building space station
components than they are at building submarines.

8. As a gesture to the EU and particularly the French (who I think I
mentioned won both the World Cup and Euro 2000), why don't we take off from
July 4 through November 8 and just call it a rather long August. By the way,
Election Day was the 7th, although the thick-as-pig**** inhabitants of West
Palm Beach said they were confused by the calendar. Many said that they
couldn't take time to carefully read the ballots because their colostomy
bags were bursting.

9. We'll give up American cars if you promise not to make us travel on
British trains. Actually, most of us won't mind banning American cars at all
because we already own the German ones. With really big engines. And lots of
leather. Do you know why? It's because we don't accept getting bent over a
barstool and paying five dollars (three pounds fifty) a gallon for gas
(petrol)!

Our government released a portion of the national emergency oil reserves
when it hit two bucks! (one pound thirty seven for you). Hell, when we saw
what was occurring in the UK last month with the blockades at the pumps, we
all went out to our driveways and started our (very big German) cars just
for fun. Nor did we get hosed on the purchase price of our (very big German)
cars because manufacturer and dealer price collusion is illegal here!!!

10. Mohammed Al Fayed.

Your Loyal Subjects,

Chipper, excellant reply, ROTFL.
Thanks for brightening my morning.

Stewart.

LOL.

BTW kokonutz. I think it is a bit presumptuous to call the United States the first and the longest lasting democracy.

Certainly the title of first has to go back at least to Athens, if not before. Just because it was not continuous doesn't mean that it wasn't democratic.

The "Mother of all Parliaments" has been going strong (to greater or lesser extent) since Simon de Montfort.

Westminster is eclipsed by an even older parliaments in Iceland. The Althing goes back to at least 930, and was a deliberative assembly in which all free men could participate. Now admittedly, Icelandic democracy was pretty much eliminated between the 17th century and 1845, but that should not eclipse the long tradition that was nonetheless there.

Switzerland has had participatory democracy at the local government level for centuries--since about 12

Now admittedly, all of these examples are littered with limited particpation. Athenian democracy was limited to citizens; the Althing was limited to free men; there was no universal suffrage for several centuries in England (not ignoring Wales, Scotland or Ireland.

But the US can lay no better claim to this. If we look to that standard, then the mark of true democracy is probably women's suffrage, which puts the US in at 1920. By that scoreboard, New Zealand wins, with women's suffrage in 1893. Australia did so in 1902, Canada in 1918. A large number of European countries also beat the US to this mark, though the UK was notably laggardly, not giving the vote to women until 1928.

Democracy actually foiled women's votes in Switzerland, which could not must enought support until 1971.

Originally posted by AC*SE:
By convention, however, the children of the Sovreign's daughters are not royal. Hence the Princess Royal's children, Peter and Zara Phillips, hold no courtesy titles, unlike their cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.

Does that mean that it would be possible for the second in succession to the throne to not be a royal? (For example, Charles prior to his mother's accession, if indeed he had been already born.)

Originally posted by ozstamps:
If you don't comprehend what an informal ballot is, and you yearn for a Law career, and do not know what used to happen in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana at election time etc, we are wasting a lot of bandwidth here unnecessarily.


That was a bit out of bounds condemning an American for not understanding Australian English. I happen to understand the term, but only by having deduced it from a read of your election statute. In the States, we would use the term "invalid" for such a ballot.

Thanks so much, silverpie for the clarification (and a civil one at that). I asked several colleagues at the paper yesterday if they knew what the term meant - shrugs all around.

BTW, I very much look forward to taking some seminars on various topics of international law during my second and third years. I find the whys and hows of conducting elections in other countries fascinating.

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-23-2000).]

Absolutely, silverpie. But it bears noting that these things are conventions. The Crown, as the fountain of honour, can always dictate changes in usage.

When the Prince of Wales was born, he was, in fact, entitled to an HRH--not because he was second in line to the Throne, but because his father (the Duke of Edinburgh) was created an HRH on his wedding day. His formal title for the first 3 years of his life was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

This is not the usual pattern for the marriage of Royal daughters, but in the case of an heiress presumptive, conventions have to be changed somewhat.

AC*SE ... great run down. You must teach/study history or politics is my guess? Very wide net you have covered there. I suspect only an American could have dared to state: "the United States was the first and the longest lasting democracy". ROTFL. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Law Lord. The Oz voting system has three different and very distinct levels:

A. Federal
B. State.
C. Local Council

All work on the marking "1" "2" "3" choice system, using a pen or pencil, no punches, levers etc.

A. Involves voting on seperate ballot papers for:

(1) House Of Representatives candidates SPECIFIC to your area, (i.e. your "Congress" basically) but NOT like in the USA specificially for a leader - the elected party and opposition parties choose a leader from among their ranks.

(2) The Australian Senate.

(3) Any matters deemed to be subject to a referendum by the Government of the day. Such as in recent times, what National Anthem to use, whether Australia will/will not remain a constitutional Monarchy. These are pretty infrequent and are genrally done at the time of a Federal election to save costs.

In all elections (1) and (2) are contested and if (3) is involved a seperate paper needs be marked, usually by simple "YES" or Tick to the referendum question/s.

B. is much the same, but always at a different time and involves voting for State Member of Parliament and State Senators. No referendum questions are ever posed.

C. is grass roots local government stuff .... I presume like your local "counties" in the USA.

All voting is 100% compulsory, and you are fined for not voting without a valid excuse.

In all cases, voters attending local voting booths are marked off a printed electoral roll, and then you are handed applicable ballot papers which when completed are dropped in boxes specific to each type. (postal and absentee voting in all 3 elections is also legal). EVERYTHING is hand counted, in ALL three elections. No Chads, levers or whatever is holding up things in Florida!




------------------
~ Glen ~

I could never understand why Americans elected their fire chief. Is there a significant difference between the way a Democrat fire chief would put out a fire as compared with a Republican fire chief?

And the thought of a party political judge is worrying to a Brit. The UK legal system is independent of government and above politics, so how can US judges be elected on presumably a party platform?

Does anyone know if any jurisdictions other than those in the USA actually use machine counting of ballots? (herein probably lies a trap with Canada at its core). Pretty much all European countries that I know about use hand counting of papers marked by hand, and I have never heard any of the sorts of accusations of bias or error that are being suggested to happen in Florida.

I also sympathise with Roger's point that the election of the judiciary, law enforcement officers, supervisors of elections, etc. seems to have the potential for danger/bias/acrimony and it is unneccessary. Meanwhile, the election of such officers as fire chief or mosquito control chief is just bizarre.

You Brits have no imagination. Possibly due to being ruled partly/fully by women for too long over there! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

I'm sure they get very nice Fire Chiefs via this wacky system. Just that if the Democrat regional office is burning down, the Republican appointed Fire Chief probably takes his time getting there.

Isn't it about 3am over there now btw?

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

~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-23-2000).]

Unique to them, I suspect, unless the Japanese or the Germans have gone high-tech recently.

As for us, the cost is prohibitive. We have 301 constituencies--and although 90% of our population live in a belt about 300 km wide, it stretches about 4000 km from one end to the other. And then there are the other 10% of the electorate who fill in the rest of the 9 million-or-so square km.

Come now, ozstamps. Take that tongue out of your cheek!

Are you referring to Her Majesty? Who's head of state in Australia? And the Aussies voted to retain her, after all ...

Or are you referring to that other old queen, whose deposing took place ten years ago this week? She always got a much better press outside the UK. (Bit like Clinton really, whose reputation outside the US is much greater than at home.)

Sorry, can't remember Queen Victoria, who was also Queen in Oz at the time, as I'm given to understand.

I am an attorney. I am briefed to act for Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

My client takes great personal umbrage at the suggestion by the last poster that she was known as "that other old Queen".

She would like it known that she was known under many different names when she ruled Britain so strongly and skilfully, and objects to the term used above. Well, she objects to MOST of what people called her, now she comes to think on it.

Have a nice day.

Roger, not every elected office is a party office. For example, in my state (not in every state), mayors and city councilors are nonpartisan. Judges and certain commission positions (the West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District directors, for example) are also nonpartisan. County sheriffs and surveyors (not always elected) are also nonpartisan here.

Eastern states have more partisan offices than the Western states, as a general rule.

Originally posted by ozstamps:

"the United States was the first and the longest lasting democracy".



You misquoted koko, the American in question. The complete quote is (emphasis mine):


kokonutz
FT Evangelist
Posts: 1238
From:Alexandria, VA, USA -- UA 1K
Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-22-2000 03:27 PM
---------------------------------------------
Look, say what you want, but America is the first and longest true democracy (well, republic, REALLY).


You got 5 of the 17 words of koko's correct. If you were a quarterback, you'd be riding the pine this Sunday with that rating. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


Originally posted by ozstamps:
All work on the marking "1" "2" "3" choice system, using a pen or pencil, no punches, levers etc.

Many, many counties across the USA do that as well.

All voting is 100% compulsory, and you are fined for not voting without a valid excuse.

"The beatings will continue until moral improves!"

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-23-2000).]

Originally posted by Roger:
I could never understand why Americans elected their fire chief. Is there a significant difference between the way a Democrat fire chief would put out a fire as compared with a Republican fire chief?

Ah! I see the possible misunderstanding now.

---
My edit: Law Lord beat me to the punch. **** l-tryptophane-laced turkey!!! Always good for a nap during half-time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
---

Roger (and others), there are many, many non-partisan positions at the local level that we vote on; for example, city and regional councils, water/sewer commissioners, etc. Actually, even state judges are non-partisan candidates.

By the by, fire chief is an appointed position in my city. Talk about taxation without representation!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif (Just kidding!!!)

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 11-23-2000).]

Law Lord and essxjay: Thanks for the points about appointed officials. When driving around in New England (and Florida?) I was confused by posters 'Vote XXXX for Fire Chief' and the like, but your comments are helpful.

MolsonMiler: I have consulted m'learned friend who asks me to point out:

1. I didn't use the dreaded T word in what is after all a respected forum, which our family members and domestic staff may stumble over by accident.

2. The reference was not to a Queen (there is only one of those around here) but to a queen. (c) Institute of Pedants 2000.

Can I plea bargain?

Ummmm, Miss Testicular. If you wish to nit pick quotes please post the full quote involved, which was of course:

Look, say what you want, but America is the first and longest true democracy (well, republic, REALLY). We simply are the oldest and best.

That emphasis is mine, and that statement stands little scrutiny!

And gee, that Turkey MUST be laced with SOMETHING over there:

"The beatings will continue until moral improves!"

We do not need beatings to improve either our morals OR our morale. WE know who is running this country, for starters. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Enjoy the Turkeys folks. Don't eat the yellow giblets!



------------------
~ Glen ~

My clients' favoured method of plea bargaining involves a rubber truncheon.

Originally posted by Roger:

Law Lord and essxjay: Can I plea bargain?



Wuddya think, LawLord? A couple of kegs of Young's ale to settle the matter out of court? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

All contributions gratefully accepted.

Gotta dash (it's 5.30 a.m. here) before those pesky Keystone Cops catch up.

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Ummmm, Miss Testicular

That's Ms. to you ...

WE know who is running this country, for starters. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As do we:

Fifteen across, nine letters ... "Forested bridge?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Supposition ... New US President is 9 letters, and we know who it is.


ROSSPEROT fits perfectly. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif


Hey ... he could appoint Baroness Thatcher as Vice President. Her with her whips and truncheon, and Ross with those massive ears and cutsey policies like 3% flat tax and a Lincoln in every garage. The cartoonists will go ballllistic!



------------------
~ Glen ~

When was the last time the US had a President who was 4'6"?

If you drink a couple of kegs of Youngs, the only place you'll be spending the next President's term is in the bathroom.

(But should any of you visit Oxford, the Oatmeal stout and the Double Chocolate Stout go down very well in the King's Arms).

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-24-2000).]

Essxjay, if Roger were to provide a few kegs of Young's (or a moral equivalent,such as Blackthorn cider) then we should let him off, or perhaps elect him to something. His offer follows the grand American tradition of "treating" in which the candidate or his [always "his" as this was in the first half of the 19th century] associates would treat the voter to a tot of whiskey, drawn from a whiskey barrel for the occasion, in exchange for the promise of a vote.

Did the quality of the whiskey correlate to the quality of the candidate? Lincoln must have passed out some good stuff, but he still got only 40% of the vote.

------------------
"If you want to win the game, write the rules."

Ozstamps, the USA hasn't had a 4'6" president. The shortest was James Madison, who stood just over 5 feet (I think 5'3" is the accepted figure) and was called "Little Jamie" before and during his term of office. He also had a terrible personality, maybe because of this.

Roger and James, you mentioned the partisan election of judges as a possible evil. I believe that in many areas USA judges were formerly elected with party affiliations, but rarely so now.

A partisan judge is capable of some strange things: in about 1873 in Hinsdale County, Colorado, one Alferd (not "Alfred") Packer was convicted of killing and eating six of his companions on a prospecting trip. The sentencing judge reportedly said, "Alferd Packer, you [expletives deleted], I sentence you to hang. There were only eight Democrats in Hinsdale County, and you no-good [expletives deleted] ate six of them."

Ozstamps, the USA hasn't had a 4'6" president.

Wait until they swear in Ross Perot then. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

Don't be unkind. Ross must be at LEAST 5' tall. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Given the actions of Bush's Young Republican thugs (Ballot Hall Putsch), maybe Neville Chamberlain is a better figure than Queen Liz.
http://msnbc.com/news/494375.asp

This is US Democracy in action? Peru or Nicaragua or Laos should send in a task force of their military to restore order with a few helicopter gunships to shoot up a few large buildings just to show who's boss down there. The US does that kind of thing all the time for others who don't ask, so these countries would be probably happy to help out now the boot is on the other foot.


THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OUTRAGE occurred
Wednesday, when ABC News correspondent Bill Redeker
discovered that Republican operatives, working out of a
Florida-based mobile home, had sent in busloads of hooligans
to shut down by force the court-ordered Miami-Dade recount
at the Stephen P. Clark Government Center. Republican
operatives also set up telephone banks to urge their
footsoldiers to join in the riot. Miami’s most important
Spanish-language radio station, Radio Mambi, issued a
summons to all pro-Republican Cuban-Americans to come
stir the pot further, with charges of anti-Latino racism against
the canvassing board.

INTIMIDATION AND FORCE
The mob chased down Joe Geller, chairman of the local
Democratic Party, because they falsely believed he had tried
to steal a ballot. He required a police escort to escape. Louis
Rosero, a Democratic aide, says he was punched and kicked
by the Republican goons. Others were trampled to the floor
as the mob tried to break down the doors of the room outside
the office of the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections where
the votes were being counted.

Going back to the initial posting on this thread, here's another view:
}
Two Brit takes on the election ...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:27:30 +0000
From: Nigel Eaton

London, 8th November 2000..

To the citizens of the United States of America,

Following your failure to elect a President of the USA to govern yourselves and, by extension, the free world, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume a monarch's duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown
Dependency, please comply with the following acts:

1. Look up "revoke" in a dictionary
2. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God save the Queen"
3. Start referring to "soccer" as football
4. Declare war on Quebec

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation and...have a nice day!


Dick Brewster writes
London, 8th November 2000..
"To the citizens of the United States of America,
Following your failure to elect a President of the USA to govern yourselves and, by extension, the free world, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence."

Great! We get a bunch of land. Cool! We get oil, lots of oil. We get cheap tools, this is good!

We get 110 volts. Ah well, never mind.

We get WWF. We get shock jocks. We get lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.

We get the LAPD. We get Coors. We get Miller Lite.

We get (shudder) Budweiser. We get
double-grande-mocha-decaff-lite-fat-free-frosted-sno-cone-freezomint-espresso

(when all we wanted was a coffee).

We get daytime TV
(what? We do? Already? Oh, OK, scratch that one).

We get SUV's. We get SUV drivers. We get pumpkin pie.


Squaaa-aaad HALT! About... Turn! Left, right, left, right, left, right.....

To the citizens of the United States of America. As you were!

P.S. Take this in the spirit it was intended! ;^)

Counsellor, you've touched on two of the things that make the United States great -- variety and needless excess!

Just think - a different portrait on each coin and bill, and soon we'll have 52 different kinds of quarters alone, in general circulation! 400 channels on cable television (none actually worth watching)! More than 25,000 independent police forces! 3600 counties (How does Britain get by with fewer than 50?)! 51 independent constitutions! 200,000 doctors (but no national health insurance)! Two Clintons and three Bushes!

Just to put a travel-related comment in this thread at last, we even have 20 or 30 domestic airlines!

Britain take the United States back? The rest of the country would cheerfully givethe original 13 states back!

LawLord. Very disappointed someone actually typed a comment about TRAVEL or AIRLINES in this thread. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif Oh well, it took 100 posts for someone to get around to that, and that must surely be a record run for a FT thread not to remotely touch on flying!

And Counseller .. love this one, it is just so much the truth in some places:

We get (shudder) Budweiser. We get
double-grande-mocha-decaff-lite-fat-free-frosted-sno-cone-freezomint-espresso

(when all we wanted was a coffee).



------------------
~ Glen ~

The only thing I'll mention, is that while this is somewhat embarrassing how it's unfolding, we're still running smooth.

Gas is still the same price, I still go to work 5 days a week, Football games are still played, I still go the to grocery store and so on.

While the system isn't perfect (what is?), it does work and eventually, somehow, we'll have a new president January 20, 2001. Until then, you're still arrested if you commit a crime. You still have to pay taxes.....

The only thing different is whose going to be the head cheese.

Scary how well we still run when the rest of the world thinks were in turmoil? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Ozstamps, I threw in the line about airlines only because you'd mentioned on another thread that this thread had had 100 posts without any travel comment -- so I figured it was time to call it a century and start fresh. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Let's go for 250 posts without using the T***** word!

ozstamps, I think perhaps you are missing a few things that are rather worth noting.

1) The US has a system of checks and balances, based essentially on the assumption that human beings are power-hungry, selfish creatures. Therefore, nobody has the power...or everyone does. Depends on how you look at it. The result is essentially the same.

2) Part of how these balances play out is the balance between the states and the national government. The first attempt at the USA was a confederacy, and was a dismal failure. James Madison wanted a system closer to what you Aussies have, but the balance between the states and the national government was established a bit more equitably. The gist was that laws appropriate to New York aren't necessarily appropriate to Georgia, and therefore the only exceptions to local rule should be cases where it is in the nation's best interest to have standardization nationally (e.g., no taxes on interstate commerce, marriages in one state must be accepted in all states, etc.) The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly gives the states all of the powers not explicitly granted to the national government. Over time, the folks in DC have gotten around this by bribing the state legislatures into complying with their wishes (do what we want, or the money we've been sending your way stops). It was not even possible to go that far without the national income tax, which required a constitutional amendment to enact.

3) As a result of the 10th Amendment, as well as sections within Articles I and II, the states get to choose how their representatives and the President's electors are chosen. Nobody in the US votes for the President (though most of them are ignorant enough that they don't realize this). In fact, it took decades before the presidential candidates' names appeared on the ballot at all. One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to reflect the influence the people have on the makeup of Congress, i.e., that there is a balance between the most and least populous states' influence. This is, in fact, why it is easy to have the popular vote not match the electoral vote. Further, each state gets to decide how to choose their electors. If a state's constitution stated that the electors were chosen by a roll of the dice, then that's how it happens. In fact, one state (I forget which) has a provision in their constitution that in the event of a tie, the two tied candidates must play a hand of poker; the winner of the hand is the winner of the election. Some states choose a state-wide voting system. Most do like the national government and allow the localities to choose their own methods.

4) Had the US been using the OZ system, instead of recounting a few thousand votes in a few counties, we'd be recounting tens of millions of votes nationally (by hand, no less). The margin of error is small enough that it's just as likely that GWB won the popular vote. It's just that it's not worth the expense to find out the answer to that question, since it's irrelevant as to who sits in the Oval Office.

I don't know Australia well enough to state whether or not the OZ voting system is best for Australia. I do know the US well enough to state that the OZ system isn't best for the US. As essxjay pointed out, the US is based on freedoms, specifically inclusive of "freedom from." In other words, not only are you free to choose what you do, one of the choices you're free to make is to do nothing.

Incidentally, Glen, your oblique references in this thread have been worthless, not only because they're obtuse, but because they're ignorant, having been based on a grain of information, rather than the entire picture. It also appears to be a pattern in your posts, from what I have seen.

mweiss. I suspect you have entirely missed the big picture on this very popular thread, and reading right back to post ONE might illuminate you? This started as a very humourous (note spelling!) thread, nothing more, nothing less.

Pretty well all participants have treated it exactly thus, and it has meandered all over the place since then, and clearly has amused many here who possess a sense of humour. (Note spelling.)

I do not now, nor have ever claimed to know, all the intricacies of the US system - although informative factual answers such as LawLords have added substantially to my knowledge of it, and doubtless other non American board members.

You likewise seem to know or understand NOTHING of our system, to post the silly quote below. The FACT is under our system, we do NOT ever need a national recount, simply BECAUSE we do not use Beavis and Butthead methodology like punching holes, partially punching holes, punching multiple holes, wrongly punching holes, possibly punching holes, or thinking that we might have forgotten to punch holes, or a combination of ALL the above. A silly system like that can clearly LEAD to recounts and mass confusion in a tight race. The proof ot that is before you right now. A simple 1, 2, 3 type system does not.

Agree with me or not on this, but the guy running the show there next WILL have got the job based on that Florida recount. This has been the essence of the thread, and the rest of the world is rolling around the floor laughing at the stupidity of such a system. Disagree with that and you are not even aware of how your own system works in practice. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Please lighten up, enjoy the humour that this mess clearly encourages. Or please go post in other threads far more serious in nature.

Had the US been using the OZ system, instead of recounting a few thousand votes in a few counties, we'd be recounting tens of millions of votes nationally (by hand, no less).

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-25-2000).]

Glen, I understand from people that met you in person that you're really a nice person and a convivial companion in the flesh.

Please do me (and maybe others of us) a favor and read over your "contributions" to this thread. Some are witty, others can be best described by changing the "w" to something else. But read them over from the standpoint not of how "witty" you feel you as the author were, but rather how someone else would take them. Are they intended to be civil? If so, why would you characterize a sovereign system of government as "Bevis and Butthead methodology"? Would you accept as civil some foreigner (yes, to those in the US you're a foreigner) characterizing your system that way?

And to what end? The snide cracks at essxjay (which she has been adult enough to ignore as unworthy of notice) and the other personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you are not, in the society in which I feel comfortable, considered acceptable. I am willing to aggressively debate ideas, but personal attacks turn me off.

My suggestion, for what it's worth: If you wish to poke fun, do it nicely (as the e-mail in the initial posting), not mean-spiritedly. If you wish to discuss or argue the merits of a system of selection of the head of state (or anything else for that matter), ensure that you understand what you're discussing, and when you are corrected on your facts, accept the corrections graciously and then decide whether this changes your opinion. Similarly, when you're alluding to a local fact (or term) not likely to be known world-wide (like what you understand the term "informal ballot" to mean when you use the term), consider for a moment explaining that term. It aids in thoughtful discussion.

In short, to quote a philosopher in the posting immediately above, "Lighten up".

Counsellor. You and mweiss really might well have skipped this thread I think. That's OK, as we all have a different sense of humour. (Thank goodness.) I have re-read every post of mine just now, and in the off-beat context of THIS thread would not change one word. As per the recent flame war, the sagest advise was: "if you don't like it, don't read it or post there". Neither of you seem to grasp its very nature. I lightened up the moment I posted this thread as it looked like FUN.

It was, until your last posts, all quite light hearted and irreverant, right from the very first posts. It caught all participants interest - for whatever reason - I don't know why - ask them. They could sense and see the direction it was taking, which was like a mad Monty Python roller coaster. Anyone too formal minded to join in stayed out. Fine. Why people have joined in, is their business. There has not been a thread on "The News" with this many posts for months, so something in here clearly appeals to a very wide range of respondents, or like most other posts here, it would vanish from trace with 3 response posts to it.

If this were a US constitutional acadaemia chatboard, I agree all your comments are quite valid. If is however simply a humble Flyer board, and this topic was just silly fun from day #1. It should have been started in OMNI, and I did it here for the specific reason stated in post #1.

And, I repeat, despite your dissertation, the SYSTEM used to RECORD VOTES in those counties in Florida still does look to me like it was designed, and is copyright © Beavis and Butthead. (I was not using that phrase in talking about your SYSTEM of Government, as you appear to allege m'lud.) I suspect half of the USA by now agrees with that voting methodology SYSTEM premise. Do you diasagree on that? One does not need to live outside the USA to see the reality of that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-25-2000).]

To return to the thread in progress:

Why do some states and localities use machine tabulation instead of hand-counting (whether of "1" "2" "3" or even "X" or checks or circles or whatever)? There are a number of reasons.

First, using a machine usually speeds things up, particularly when one has a lot of votes to count. Remember, there were about 100 million votes cast just for the Presidential race alone. Then there were 435 House races (plus 5 non-voting delegates), 33 or 34 Senatorial races, many states had their whole legislatures being elected, plus the numerous non-legislative races ranging from governors and judges down to (yes, in some cases) fire chiefs, school boards, and water district commissioners. To count all those by hand would be tedious at best, even if the count were more accurate that way. Why do "scutwork" when you can have a machine do it for you?

But the question of accuracy is the second reason. Numerous studies by statisticians and psychologists have established that, even if people are trying their best to be accurate, when it is up to humans to count (or sort) lots of things for an extended period of time, as the number of items and the time increases the error rate becomes significant. In some cases, the error rate goes as high as 5%. This is not satisfactory in close elections, and machine counting will normally provide a much more accurate answer (error rates <0.5%).

And the conditional "even if people are trying their best to be accurate" is the third reason machine counts are preferred. Unfortunately, our history is replete with instances of vote-rigging. From the Boss Tweed machine in New York to the Prendergast Machine in Kansas City to the Daley machine in Chicago (yes, that's his boy running around Florida bleating about "fair counts") to the whatsisname machine in Boston (slips my mind at the moment - "Curley", wasn't it?), ballot rigging has been a problem. Boss Tweed is once said to have remarked, "You can vote any way you want to, so long as I get to count the votes." Machines can be "fixed", but they can't be bribed.

And one more reason - machines don't exercise judgment. It's either in or out. This may be good or bad (that's a different argument), but it cannot be denied that it is consistent. Every ballot is treated the same way and is judged by the same standards. You don't have one standard when counting a Democrat ballot and another when faced with a Republican ballot.

Now, I don't know how things work in Australia (see, I admit it), but if you are still using pen/pencil and a requirement to mark something to express your desire, you're almost certainly going to have the same sort of requirement for dealing with votes by people who did not properly follow directions that we have. If you have a block, do you check it, or "X" it, or fill it in, or circle it, or what? And what happens if whatever was supposed to be done wasn't quite finished? If the block isn't completely filled in? If the circle only goes 75% of the way around, or 50%, or 25%?

Do you not have recounts in Oz? Do you just blindly accept whatever the first set of counters come up with?

What mweiss (whom I found to be quite informative, by the way) said was:

Had the US been using the OZ system, instead of recounting a few thousand votes in a few counties, we'd be recounting tens of millions of votes nationally (by hand, no less).

He's quite right, too. If the US had a popular election of the President using hand marked, hand tabulated votes, and the result came out this close, we would have to recount all 100 million ballots, and since your ballots are (I understand) not machine readable, we'd have to do it all by hand.

Is the "rest of the world" laughing at us? Well, not where I've been recently. The non-US citizens I've spoken with are a bit confused, certainly (many thought we did directly elect our President, and can't understand why a couple of precincts in Florida are making such a difference), but without a single exception they have said how impressed they are with the way we're working it out without tanks in the streets or a military takeover "to restore order". Maturity is not defined as never making a mistake; it is defined by what you do when (what appears to be) a mistake is made.

At least, that's how I see it.

I thought mweiss's (note punctuation - see below) was worthwhile. I learnt from it - I don't normally read long posts, but that one was informative.

I'm not really concerned about the platforms on which ozstamps and others are campaigning. After all, I don't get a vote here.

A couple of points: whatever the system for choosing president, if country X were to elect a president who did not carry the national vote, the State Department would have something to say about it.

If Milosevic had hung on as president with a minority of votes, we would have been upset. But a popular movement persuaded him to go. Aux armes, citoyens des Etats-Unis?

It's all very well for Her Majesty to be asked to restore the faith in the colonies. There is another point concerning cultural imperialism which is concerning a few bods who learnt English the way I did.

Candidates in school exams in the UK are to be allowed to use US English in their answers. It seems that 'sulfate' and 'fetus' will supersede 'sulphate' and 'foetus' snd the like.

Now I have no problem with US English (or Australian English or South African English or ... or ... ). 'Color' and 'honor' are just as OK for me as 'colour' and 'honour', especially as the early settlers took the original spelling with them. In any case, the Canadians use 'harbour', not 'harbor'. And I long since got used to 'traveling'.

But where will this end? Will I have to order to-may-to on my pizza, will I have to get my proe-dyuce at Sainsburys instead of my groceries?

Will I have to add 15-20% to my bills all over the place (even for self-service breakfasts as I did in LA last week)?

Cultural diversity is OK. If the US uses odd (to the rest of us) ways to choose its leader, that has to be what we accept. After all, we can't send Jimmy Carter to observe. And it will take for ever for me not to use to-mar-to ketchup!

(And that word mweiss's in the first line is how we spell mweiss' in the UK!)

Speaking of different pronunciation and spelling (calling Merry - we're at it again!), I recall when that show about the Carrington family was popular. Had a Brit (?) actress in it - Joan Collins. Anyway, folks started talking past each other what with the UK English pronouncing it as "Dinn - esty" (as in "dinner") while the US folks talked about "Die-nesty" (as in death).

So, from the spelling and pronunciation differences it can't be a far leap to words spelled and pronounced the same among us, but having radically different meanings. For instance, why is a "bum bag" not called a "fanny pack" in the UK as it is in the US? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

The system here for Federal elections requires ALL boxes on a ballot sheet be numbered sequentially - 1, 2, 3 etc. X or ticks are not accepted and the vote is thus informal, or whatever term you use there for being not legally marked.

It is simple, the forms says this right on the front, and marking only ONE number rates it informal, in the case of an electorate with more than one candidate. All parties hand out "how to vote" cards to all voters showing them how THEY want one to mark it. So, even an illiterate person can easily vote formally.

A recount can be demanded pretty much on your apparent USA basis when the final (hand counted) vote for any electorate (and there are lots) is VERY close within a defined % tolerance. The recount takes place of votes ONLY in that electorate. Not nationwide. Seems sensible.

And let me make my own political statement here. I do NOT agree with the hand marked and hand read ballots we use. I feel in this new century, it could all be handled electronically. Faster and cheaper. The polling booths are almost always sited in Educational centres, which are groaning with computer equipment already government paid for. All I am doing is explaining WHAT the current system is, medieval as it may be.

Where is your agreed scenario for a national US hand recount coming from that you and mweiss seem to fervently agree is so possible and harmful? How does the present mess affect Wyoming where there was a clear result? Why recount Wyoming or Maine etc just becuase of a disputed result in portions of Florida? I don't get the thought processes here!

And Roger .. have you ever wonderered when our American linguistic friends, assisted ably by Senor Gates, will decide it is piza and not pizza? They have somehow missed that one so far. They got lite, and catalog, and jewelry, and color, and gray, but not pizza. Shhhhh. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

(Well, I guess they have stuffed a Z into every word that never had one, or needed one, like realize, vaporize, (they lost the U there too) categorize, etc, so they might just have a ZZZZZZZZZZ fetish?)

------------------
~ Glen ~



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 11-25-2000).]

My (British English) spellchecker always wants me to change 'liaise' to 'liase'. That's not the UK spelling, Mr Gates, but is it the US spelling?

Also, mentioning piza, the Germans, Swiss and Austrians have just unified (?) the German language. Amongst their 'improvements' is the change from 'spaghetti' to 'spagetti'!

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Where is your agreed scenario for a national US hand recount coming from that you and mweiss seem to fervently agree is so possible and harmful? How does the present mess affect Wyoming where there was a clear result? Why recount Wyoming or Maine etc just because of a disputed result in portions of Florida? I don't get the thought processes here.


What I was saying (and what I think mweiss was saying) was that direct election of the President (based on total popular vote from all of the US) would generate nation-wide recounts, because a missing Gore vote in Wyoming would count just as much as a missing Gore vote in Florida.

(From there, the argument went that if one has to manually recount because ballots are (as in Oz) not machine readable, this - a nation-wide recount by hand - would be rather tedious and time consuming, as well as having the increased potential for fraud and/or error. Personally, I agree with you - all ballots should be machine readable, and counted by machines.)

The reason under the current US electoral system that we don't have to count Wyoming or Maine is that Wyoming's 3 electors went to Bush over Gore by 69% to 28% and Maine's 4 electors went to Gore over Bush by 49% to 44%. A recount there would be unlikely to affect the result in that state, and certainly will not affect Florida's 25 electoral votes, since only votes in Florida are used to decide Florida's 25 electors.

As you know, the electors are the ones who actually vote for the President, and the electors are chosen by the states themselves (actually by a method determined by the legislatures of the states, but in most cases that means winner-take-all voting within the state). So, if the issue comes down to Florida's 25 electoral votes, Maine's ballots to chose their electors have no relevance to the issue, and need not be recounted.

If the issue were not limited to Florida, but rather was simply a matter of (say) 15 electoral votes, then it might call Iowa's (7 electoral votes, Gore by less than 1%), New Mexico's (3 electoral votes, Gore by 179 ballots statewide), Oregon's (7 electoral votes, still too close to call) and Wisconsin's (11 electoral votes, Gore by less than 1%) elections into issue as well, since a change of a couple of those might change the outcome.

I hope that helps.

However, since I'm on the soapbox, let me respond to Roger's comment:

. . . whatever the system for choosing president, if country X were to elect a president who did not carry the national vote, the State Department would have something to say about it.

Probably not, if the elections were fair. After all, where, as in the UK, the head of government is elected not directly by the people but rather by the members of a parliament (elected by the people, but from districts), one could well get a situation where the number of voters for a particular party might be more than the total number of voters for another, yet the party with fewer total popular votes having elected a greater number of members of parliament, that party would name the Prime Minister. Yet, I doubt that the US (or even the UK) would see that as fundamentally unfair.

Has that ever happened in the UK (or Australia), would either of you happen to know?

Counsellor:

Can't immediately check details, but I believe the scenario you outline did indeed occur once postwar in the UK.

Originally posted by ozstamps:
(Well, I guess they have stuffed a Z into every word that never had one, or needed one, like realize, vaporize, (they lost the U there too) categorize, etc, so they might just have a ZZZZZZZZZZ fetish?)


Hmmm. Would you say that is a "Zee" fetish or a "Zed" fetish? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

We say ZEBra, you say ZEEbra. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

But I understand enterprise is till enterprise(?).

And is Counsellor a counselor?!

And the almighty Dollar is not a Dolar and a Buck is not a Buk. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

Originally posted by Roger:
And is Counsellor a counselor?!

That "one ell" thing is relatively recent. When I was growing up (yes, way back then), the 2-ell version was what I always saw in the US midwest. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1984) lists both spellings, with the "one ell" first as preferred.

I also tend to lapse into "traveller" and "cancelled", both of which are acceptable but not preferred according to Webster's, while Bill Gates accepts "cancelled" but not "traveller". Go figure. <shrug>



[This message has been edited by Counsellor (edited 11-26-2000).]

Counsellllllor said:

For instance, why is a "bum bag" not called a "fanny pack" in the UK as it is in the US?

For about the same reaons that we do not go out ROOTING for a soccer team over here. (Or any team) Or dare I say it on these boards, the same reaons we would NEVER name a son RANDY. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

And Counselllllor - good to see you have now joined the spirit of this very funny and entertaining thread. OZZIE never needed to "lighten up" - he did that right from the initial post and set the clear tone for the rest of us to follow - or ignore - our choice. It was a couple of you guys who started treating this as a conventional "serious" thread and got it bogged down for a little while. Keep up the frivolity folks! I am smiling over my Sunday cornflakes here.

am also smilling while learning lots and lots of good engllish... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif honest!

And we don't knock people up in the morning, do we?

Roger. They'll never understand. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

From the London newspaper The Independent 25 November 2000:

--------------------------------------
Forgive us. But we may be about to suffer a sense-of-humor failure. According to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the body responsible for overseeing exams in England, schoolchildren will soon be told to adopt "internationally standardised" versions of certain words. We are not fooled. We know this means American versions.

In future, "foetus" and "sulphate" should instead, we are told, be written as "fetus" and "sulfate". Well, this really makes us mad. In fact, it makes us see a kinda red colored mist. As if Microsoft (the inventors of the pernicious "US English" spellcheck), the internet, Disney, rap, McDonald's and chads were not enough to contend with, we now find an American fifth column in our own midst. That is a really cute and mean move (or a cunning and vicious one in British English).

Are we really going to take lessons in language from the land whose president came up with "It depends what the meaning of 'is' is". Hell, no!

When it comes to the Americanisation of the English language, it is time for the Brits to kick some ....

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

Independent, eh? Glad they haven't got a point of view.

Are we really going to take lessons in language from the land whose President came up with "It depends what the meaning of 'is' is". Hell, no!

And a Vice-President who invented a new word all on his own. Potatoe.

A few random observations based on this fascinating thread:

Sulfate is the correct spelling, dictated by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, which is tasked with deciding such things. The American (modern) spellings of many words are simpler (hence easier) than the British spellings and are generally just as elegant (Traveler, color, etc., excepted). I am a scientist, I work at Oxford University (and where is more English than that?), and 95% of my writing is in American English.

The point of electing a Presidnt by electoral college rather than popular vote is that (s)he is President of a Federal Republic. If you could win on the basis of the popular vote, why would anyone care about Alaska or South Dakota?

Ozstamps, the rest of the world is not (all) laughing at the current US election. I can't think of a better example of democracy in action that actually trying to count people's votes to determine the winner. Indeed the only thing that disturbs me about it is hearing a president-elect of the USA saying 'don't count anymore'.

It is clearly true that if the US elected its President by popular vote, a national recount would be underway. However, since counties could count in parallel, it would only take as long as the slowest county. Moreover, if the system invoved a single popular vote there would be a clear case for using a single type of ballot and thus any anaomalies would, at least, be consistent (and so could be handled consistently). The fact that you elect electors means it is still a local election subject to local laws, which a nationwide popular vote would not be.

In the UK general election of February 1974 the Labour party received about 230,000 fewer votes than the Conservative Party but had 5 more MPs. They did not have a majority in the House of Commons and governed as a minority until they called another general election in October 1974. On that occassion, the Labour Party won by one million votes and had a Commons majority of 8.

In November 1975, the Governer-General of Australia, appointed by the Queen, unilaterally fired the Prime Minister, elected (indirectly) by the people. He then appointed the leader of the opposition as replacement Prime Minister until a general election could be held.


[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-26-2000).]

ozstamps, while I did, indeed, find humour ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif) in your first post in this thread, what about your second ("Mickey Mouse"), third ("weird bits of paper"), fourth (where you clearly indicate a lack of understanding of the US electoral process), fourth (write-ins), fifth (indented chad), sixth (dialectical misunderstanding of a US invalidated ballot), seventh and eighth(punching is clearly inferior to writing in numbers), ninth (no contribution), tenth (informative, but no humorous intent), and 11-15 (more of the same stuff in the previous nine)? Seems to me that, if one were to truly look at the "big picture," one would look at the 93% of your posts in this thread, rather than the 7%.

Yup, many of us (myself included) have had several chuckles from this thread. I had one from your 7%. Your remaining 93% was the topic of my post, and approximately 35% of the posts in this thread have been in line with the post I made. Moreover, if you look at the ones in the past four days, that percentage increases substantially. I saw little point in covering material that had already been covered; my post was a contribution of new material designed, in part, to provide some background information to people like Roger, whose residence would necessarily result in a reduction of relevant information with respect to the more recent topic at hand.

Australia, as I understand it, has no national election for their head of state (the closest approximation to the US President), who is de jure chosen by birthright in a constitutional monarchy, and one would hope that said person would at least seriously consider the advice of Parliament in making decisions...but there is certainly no constitutional requirement to do so. The current head of state (Queen Elizabeth II), is represented within Australia by the Governor-General, who is the de facto head of state.

It is, in fact, this very situation that results in Australia never having a need for a national election for any office. Therefore, if Australia did have a head of state elected by a national popular vote, a recount would, in fact, be nationwide.

Contrary to the allegation of simplicity, a close election results in disputes over ballots that are technically informal (to use the OZ term). If the apparent loser of an election would win if ballots deemed informal due to a minor technical issue were counted, you can bet that there would be a legal battle over those ballots.

Now for a bit of additional history lesson. As I noted before, each state determines their own election process, and many states leave it up to localities. Early in the 20th century, the process in rural areas was much as described by ozstamps (I'll leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions regarding the comparison between the current voting in Australia and the rural voting in the US 100 years ago). In urban areas, a couple of "modern" alternatives existed, with the intent being to increase the speed of tallying. One consisted of putting balls in holes that would allow for only a single ball while the curtain of the polling booth was closed. Opening the curtain to leave the booth resulted in the balls dropping into bins, and upon closing of the polls, the balls were counted mechanically. A similar approach was developed around the same time that involved levers that advanced counting wheels. These were the systems used in urban areas until approximately forty years ago.

In the 1960s, a new vote tallying system was introduced in the urban areas, and its design was such that it would work well in rural areas as well. This method involved the use of pre-perforated paper cards that could have rectangles punched out of them with a punching device. This punched-card method allowed for votes to be tallied in a much more rapid fashion than in the past, and became quite pervasive by 1980. Its only disadvantage was a slight decrease in accuracy because of occasionally incompletely detached chad ("chad" is a plural noun, like "confetti;" one punched rectangle is actually correctly referred to as "a piece of chad."), but because most elections have a margin between candidates or positions of in excess of 10%, the 2-3% margin of error in punched cards was deemed an acceptable cost for the increase in efficiency of counting votes.

In the 1980s, punched cards began to be superceded by optical scanning devices, which would be able to read darkened spots on ballots. One advantage to this approach became apparent as smaller scanning devices were able to be incorporated into the ballot boxes themselves, thus allowing for an initial tally to be compiled within minutes of the polls closing. Another is a smaller margin of error (approximately 1-2%).

A newer method still is setting up computer terminals with touch screens. Unlike the punched cards and scanned ballots, touch screens have a margin of error small enough to be inconsequential. However, the equipment is much more expensive and bulky. The question remains whether it's worth that expense for the once-a-century election of this sort.

The march of technology, coupled with the local choices of voting methods (including the local issues of paying for those methods), results in the patchwork application of voting technology in the US.

Beyond the history lesson of voting technology, there is something of supreme importance to note here. Regardless of the outcome of the Florida recounts, there won't be wholesale rioting of the people in the US. Tanks won't roll through the streets. We'll continue to go to work, go to the movies, drive our gas-guzzling SUVs a half-mile to the ten-acre grocery stores. In short, the democratic republic known as the United States of America will survive because of a wonderfully-crafted document known as the United States Constitution. Power changes hands all the time without a single drop of blood being shed, and that in itself is an amazing accomplishment for a species known for precisely the opposite.

[This message has been edited by mweiss (edited 11-26-2000).]

Three facts that this thread recalled to me:

1. The oldest republic still in existence is (I think) San Marino, which IIRC has been some sort of republic for about 1500 years. But it covers only 20 square miles on a mountaintop. The USA has the longest-running more-or-less-continuous republican (small "r") government of a largish nation.

2. Preferential voting (which is what I think Ozstamps was describing as voting "1,2,3..." for candidates) has a problem which was formalized by Kenneth J. Arrow, then of Harvard University, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. The problem is that in a three-or-more candidate field where the voters vote preferentially 1,2,3,... for the candidates, the winner is not necessarily the candidate who makes the most people happiest. (This is not an intuitive result but can be mathematically demonstrated with some simple examples.)

3. We in the United States, being mostly ignorant of foreign affairs except for the quality of Canadian fishing and having lived in relative isolation since the Convention of 1789 established our government, don't realize how new most of the rest of the political world is. IIRC these nations all have governments established in more or less their present form after the USA established its federal government: Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Japan (even crediting the Meiji Restoration), China (both of them), and many others. Many nations are older, but few governments are older.

Roger noted, regarding the notable differences between Queen's English and US English:
And we don't knock people up in the morning, do we?
Well, some of us do! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
Incidentally, "mweiss's" is, in fact, the correct spelling in the US as well...it's just that it ends up being quite frequently misspelled, in the same way that "its" and "it's" are often misused (for the umpteenth time, no possessive pronoun contains an apostrophe! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif). And "liaise" is the correct spelling in both the UK and the US. Microsoft buys the spell-checker dictionary from another company (<A HREF="http://"www.lhsl.com"" TARGET=_blank>Lernout & Houspie</A>, I believe), so any mistakes in the dictionary aren't directly the fault of the people in Redmond.

Ohhhhh...preferential voting! Geez, ozstamps, why didn't you say that in the first place?

There are reasons to support preferential voting...there are at least a half-dozen methods of voting out there that I'm aware of, and preferential is one of 'em. 'Course, none of them have anything to do with <A HREF="http://"www.chadembassy.org"" TARGET=_blank>chad</A>.

mweiss - your long post is fascinating. I would like to ask a couple of things... you say:

I'll leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions regarding the comparison between the current voting in Australia and the rural voting in the US 100 years ago

We've already established that to the best of the available knowledge here, the USA is the only country in the world that counts ballots mechanically, as opposed to by hand. Therefore, exactly what conclusions are we supposed to draw?


Beyond the history lesson of voting technology, there is something of supreme importance to note here. Regardless of the outcome of the Florida recounts, there won't be wholesale rioting of the people in the US. [...] In short, the democratic republic known as the United States of America will survive because of a wonderfully-crafted document known as the United States Constitution. Power changes hands all the time without a single drop of blood being shed, and that in itself is an amazing accomplishment for a species known for precisely the opposite.

That is largely true, and I have nothing but the utmost admiration for the American system of government. However, doesn't the ability to transfer power effectively and govern in a stable fashion come more specifically from the rule of law? For example, Great Britain has been governed through the Crown and Parliament without any real problem with the succession since 1689 and there hasn't been a battle on British soil since 1746 (which was the last serious rebellion). All this without the benefit of the United States Constitution. Now I know one is well founded in the legal tradition of the other, but why do you imply that the fact that power will eventually transfer smoothly is some peculiarity of the United States?


[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-26-2000).]

james, there was a tiny bit of tongue-in-cheek in my post, but in rereading it, I can easily see how it can be missed.

The conclusion to which I referred pertains to the recognition that progress is often a double-edged sword. I happen to think (and ozstamps apparently agrees) that mechanical counting is superior in most cases, because the margin of error in the mechanical system is usually smaller than the margin of difference between candidates.

Regarding the ability to transfer power effectively and govern in a stable fashion, there was at least one rebellion against the Crown in the late 1770s in the North American colonies, and another quite a bit later in India. But of greater importance, the UK still has the head of state determined by birthright, rather than by the people. And there is no provision for a popular transfer of power in that office. Granted, the office has far less power than it used to, but there is still one head of state, and it's not a position with a peaceable provision for a popular transfer of power.

Having said all of that, I am convinced that there would be no US Constitution as we know it today without the UK Parliamentary system that preceded it by over a century.

Of greatest importance here is that my point was not that the US is somehow unique with respect to the bloodless transfer of power, but rather that the concept in general is remarkable. In short, the fact that it's possible to have societies, of which the US is an example, where the transfer of power happens without bloodshed, is a remarkable fact that supercedes all of the noise regarding who will next sit in the Oval Office.

[This message has been edited by mweiss (edited 11-26-2000).]

I did say "Great Britain has been governed..." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As for the other bit, I suppose I have no problem with a consitutional monarchy, mainly because I live in one and it is clear how little real power the monarch has (today). Power is practically vested in the elected legisature, the executive drawn from it and the courts that excercise the common law. I appreciate your point about there being no peacable popular means to transfer power from one head of state to another - but in our system of government there is no need for one. The authority of the government dervies from the Crown, which is distinct from the monarch - when QEII dies and is suceeded by her heirs, Parliament and the Courts will still exist under the same laws, with the same powers.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.


[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-26-2000).]

Along the line begun by ozstamps in the first posting to this thread, check out:

Serbia Deploys Peacekeeper Forces To U.S. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3641/serbia_deploys_forces.html)


[This message has been edited by Counsellor (edited 11-27-2000).]

Nice link counsellor .. and well timed, this thread was starting to actually get SERIOUS. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

BELGRADE - - Serbian president Vojislav Kostunica deployed more than 30,000 peacekeeping troops to the USA Monday, pledging full support to the troubled North American nation as it struggles to establish democracy.

"We must do all we can to support free elections in America and allow democracy to gain a foothold there," Kostunica said. "The U.S. is a major player in the Western Hemisphere and its continued stability is vital to Serbian interests in that region."

Special Report - related stories:

Nation Plunges Into Chaos »
NBC News Reverses Earlier Report Of Gore's Death »
Serbia Deploys Peacekeeping Forces To U.S. »
Bush Executes 253 New Mexico Democrats »
Communication With Florida Cut Off »
Clinton Declares Self President For Life »

"Mr. Gore needs to acknowledge the will of the people and concede that he has lost this election," Kostunica said. "Until America's political figures learn to respect the institutions that have been put in place, the nation will never be a true democracy."

Serbian forces have been stationed throughout the U.S., with an emphasis on certain trouble zones. Among them are Oregon, Florida, and eastern Tennessee, where Gore set up headquarters in Bush territory. An additional 10,000 troops are expected to arrive in the capital city of Washington, D.C. by Friday.

Though Kostunica has pledged to work with U.S. leaders, he did not rule out the possibility of economic sanctions if the crisis is not resolved soon.

"For democracy to take root and flourish, it must be planted in the rich soil of liberty. And the cornerstone of liberty is elections free of tampering or corruption," Kostunica said. "Should America prove itself incapable of learning this lesson on its own, the international community may be forced to take stronger measures." ©

------------------
~ Glen ~

Confusion, cynicism - and distaste - greeted the news Monday that after weeks of political wrestling, there is still no certainty about who will be the next president of the United States.

``This has been the strangest presidential election of modern times and has not reflected well upon the country,'' opined The Times of London in an editorial Monday. ``An exercise in democracy has evolved into another lucrative venture for the lawyers.''

In Hong Kong, courier Wong Siu-kam reflected a common incomprehension about the complexities of the vote- and the count. ``The United States is such a technologically advanced county, so why is there so much chaos?'' he asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Recount-World-Reaction.html

Canada has also elected governments which did not win the total popular vote. The most recent federal example was 1979, but it is by no means isolated.

The Queen herself has gone one better than her Governor General of Australia.

In 1957, when Sir Anthony Eden resigned as Prime Minister, it fell to the Queen to choose his successor. At that time the Parliamentary party (i.e. the Tory caucus) did not select their leader.

After consulting with Churchill and the Marquess of Salisbury, The Queen sent for Harold Macmillan, rather than Eden's deputy, "Rab" Butler.

But in that case a vacancy had arisen because of Eden's resignation, not because Eden was sacked by HMQ! (technically the Queen apoints all UK Prime Ministers, it's just that she always appoints the person who has the support of the majority of the House of Commons, normally the leader of the largest party).

PS, if she consulted Churchill, I am quite surprised Churchill didn't recommend "Churchill" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-27-2000).]

Simple, multi-national solution:

New Mexico is made part of Mexico.

Florida is returned to Spain.

Quebec and New Hampshire are made a colony of France.

The rest of Canada, together with all pro-Gore states, gets Al Gore as President.

The rest of the former US gets George W. Bush.

Democrats in Bush territory are offered relocation to Orange County, California; Southern Illinois; or Central Pennsylvania. Republicans in Gore territory are offered relocation to the numerous spas and bed & breakfast resorts in Bush territory that will go out of business without any Democratic visitors.

And hey, while we are at it, lets give Alaska back to the Russians. Too darn cold up there anyway. And Louisiana thinks it is French still, so let them have the Euro for a few years and see how they like THAT dumb idea.

And give California back to Mars. Well, most inhabitants seem like they come from there originally. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

And we should never have taken Manhatten from the Dutch on those terms. Too darn small. It needs to be much larger. That trade was a bad deal.

Somewhat light, but interesting:
http://encarta.msn.com/column/countingthevote.asp

Anybody notice the election result in that other country, east of Alaska, that also celebrates Thanksgiving? Yes, the one with QEII as head of state.

Government re-elected with increased majority. Third term, too, for Mr Chretien.

Ah, there's the answer. Amend the amendment! Re-appoint Mr Clinton!

Clinton. Nah, bring back Ronnie Reagan. Harmless fellow!

Counsellor: Thanks for calling me across the great divide from the BA forum to 'In the news'.

Unfortunately (of fortunately depending on your view) I am not playing in this forum. Quite frankly I find some of the comments deeply offensive.

Nick

goldelite
And hey, while we are at it, lets give Alaska back to the Russians.

With all that oil up there? Are you kidding?

Drill, baby, drill! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Jon Toner - OK, the TOP 20 miles of Alaska stays a state - you know, the bit with the town called Prudhoe Bay in it, and the Russians get the REST. Make it a land locked principality, like Leichtenstein, or the Vatican. Think how much we'd save on road maintenance a year that way. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Jon Toner - OK, the TOP 20 miles of Alaska stays a state - you know, the bit with the town called Prudhoe Bay in it, and the Russians get the REST. Make it a land locked principality, like Leichtenstein, or the Vatican. Think how much we'd save on road maintenance a year that way. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Just discovered this thread. Surprised no one posted the "Reply to the Limeys" that came through within 24 hours of the original Revocation:

To the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

We welcome your concern about our electoral process. It must be exciting for you to see a real Republic in action, even if from a distance. As always we're amused by your quaint belief that you're actually a world power. The sun never sets on the British Empire! Right-o chum!

However, we regretfully have to decline your offer for intervention. On the other hand, it would be amusing to see you try to enforce your new policy (for the 96.3% of you that seem to have forgotten that you have
little to no real power). After much deliberation, we have decided to
continue our tradition as the longest running democratic republic. It
seems that switching to a monarchy is in fact considered a "backwards step" by the majority of the world.

To help you rise from your current anachronistic status, we have compiled a series of helpful suggestions that we hope you adopt:

1. Realize that language is an organic structure, and that you aren't always correct in your pronunciation or spelling. Let's use your "aluminium" example. Sir Humphrey Davy (an Englishman) invented the
name "aluminum" (note spelling) for the metal. However, in common usage the name evolved into "aluminium" to match the naming convention of other elements. In 1925 the United States decided to switch back to the
_original_ spelling and pronunciation of the word, at which point we dominated the aluminum industry. We'd also like to point out that the process of actually producing aluminum was developed by an American and
a Frenchman (not an Englishman). However, we'd like to thank you for the Oxford English Dictionary. It's an interesting collection, considering that over 10,000 of the words in the original edition were submitted by a crazy American civil-war veteran called Dr. William Charles Minor.

2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents, and then we'll talk about the English and Australian accent issue.

3. Review your basic arithmetic.
(Hint 100 - 98.85 = 1.15 and 100 - 97.85 = 2.15)

4. If you want English actors as good guys, then make your own movies. Don't rely on us for your modern popular culture. We liked "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels", "Trainspotting", and "The Full Monty". We've
also heard good things about this "Billy Elliot". But one good movie a year doesn't exactly make a cultural powerhouse. However, you're doing pretty well with music, so keep up the good work on that front.

5. It's inefficient to have a national anthem that changes its title whenever your monarch dies. Let's not forget that your national anthem has an extremely boring tune. We suggest switching to that Rule
Brittania ditty, it's toetapping. Or maybe Elton John could adapt "Candle In The Wind" again for you guys.

6. Improve at your national sport. Football? Soccer? This just in:
United States gets fourth place in men's soccer at the 2000 Summer Olympics. United Kingdom? Not even close. By the way, impressive showing at Euro 2000. You almost managed to get through the tournament without
having your fans start an international incident.

7. Learn how to cook. England has some top notch candy. Salt 'n' Vinegar chips are quite yummy. However, there's a reason why the best food in your country is Indian or Chinese. Your contributions to the culinary
arts are soggy beans, warm beer, and spotted dick. Perhaps when you finally realize the French aren't the spawn of satan they'll teach you how to cook.

8. You're doing a terrible job at understanding cars. The obvious error is that you drive on the wrong side of the road. A second problem is pricing, it's cheaper to buy a car in Belgium and ship it to England than to buy a car in England. On the other hand, we like Jaguars and Aston
Martins. That's why we bought the companies.

9. We'll tell you who killed JFK when you apologize for "Teletubbies".

Thank you for your time. You can now return to watching bad Australian soap operas.

p.s. - regarding WW2: You're Welcome.

[This message has been edited by 1P (edited 11-29-2000).]

It's amazing that any nation could even contemplate putting someone into the White House (GWB) who hasn't got a brain. (But then I suppose there was Ronald Reagan.) He's only been out of the country twice in his life. Rumor is that he takes his passport with him when he goes to Disneyland..... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Problem is, the only alternative is Snooty Al, who no one much wants either.

An obvious solution to this long-running farce is to give them two years each. Who goes first to be decided by the first one to get a chad pregnant.

Maybe Michael Jackson could have a short stint as well?

------------------
~ Glen ~

Originally posted by 1P:
It's amazing that any nation could even contemplate putting someone into the White House (GWB) who hasn't got a brain. (But then I suppose there was Ronald Reagan.) He's only been out of the country twice in his life. Rumor is that he takes his passport with him when he goes to Disneyland.....

As little as I liked Reagan's policies, the issue with him was more his disinterest than his lack of intelligence: he was smart enough to manipulate and motivate. Dumbya is just plain stupid.

Another problem with Shrub is that he truly believes that he's in a different country when he leaves Texas...but then again I sometimes feel that way when I leave NYC.

A few notes to 1P:

Minor Correction: Sir Humphrey Davy was not an Englishman! He was a Cornishman. Whatever the political situation of the last 1000 years may have created, the Cornish are as distinct a people as the Welsh or the Scots!

Re: 2) When has an American ever been able to distinguish a Canadian accent? Or duplicate one? If I never here another Hollywood attempt to recreate the "ou" diphthong I will be content.

Re: 5) If the tune's so boring, how come you have liberally borrowed of it?

Re: 6) Yes, Americans are just about up to the level of successfully kicking a ball around a field. However, when it comes to the National sport (cricket), Americans have failed utterly to comprehend it, and have instead created a simplified version of rounders peppered with cricket terminology.

Re: 7) This from the land that gave us the Big Mac? (And bear in mind, it took an Italian--Catherine de Medici--to teach the French how to cook.)

Re: 8) If one didn't ride on the left, how could one dismount the other driver with one's lance? Clearly the switch to driving on the right precipitated by the Americans was a crude, paternalistic attempt to do away with highway jousting. I am surprised that more libertarian elements haven't rebelled against this.

Re: 9) It's a fair cop.

(P.S. At least Canada, Australia, NZ et al. had the good grace to show up on time. The only wars that the Americans were punctual for are the ones you started yourselves!)

Originally posted by CO FF:
As little as I liked Reagan's policies, the issue with him was more his disinterest than his lack of intelligence: he was smart enough to manipulate and motivate. Dumbya is just plain stupid.

Temper, temper.

Actually, although we shouldn't be talking politics here, I have to differ with both of your allegations:

Reagan understood that the greatest threat to the US and the free world was the Soviet Union, and he made it his number one priority to deal with that threat. And he succeeded, where numerous predecessors had failed (and where even someone as astute as Kissinger blew it). You may have forgotten what it was like 20 years ago to face a determined enemy with enough nuclear ordnance to quite literally obliterate the United States, and which was actively engaged in adventurism. The "Doomsday Clock" was pinned between 2355 and 2359 as I recall.

He set the economy on the proper course with the tax cuts. The tax cuts did indeed stimulate the economy once we got past the pain of wringing out the Carter inflation, and did indeed result in double the income tax revenues over his term of office as he had predicted; the reason the increased revenue didn't wipe out the budget deficit was that each of his budgets was declared "dead on arrival" by the Democrat-controlled Congress, which ignored them and immediately spent each additional dollar in revenue three or four times over.

(Could Reagan have stopped the Democrats by vetoing the budgets they sent him and thereby shutting down the government a la Clinton? Who knows. However, to attempt it would have been to lose focus on the task of dealing with the Soviet Union. I think he had his priorities right.)

As to Dubya and smarts, I guess it depends on how one defines "stupid". So far, I would say throughout his life the Shrub has done better than the Totem Pole.

Now lets go back either to working for humor or for miles and points. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Americans are just about up to the level of successfully kicking a ball around a field. However, when it comes to the National sport (cricket), Americans have failed utterly to comprehend it, and have instead created a simplified version of rounders peppered with cricket terminology.

AC*SE .. since when??! I dont recall seeing the USA in the World Cup Soccer Finals.

I will concede the World Series baseball is generally won by Americans. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


------------------
~ Glen ~

Oz, so are we to understand that when the USA hosted the World Cup in 1994, you weren't paying very close attention? (the host nation qualifies by right). How about when they played in France '98, that time having qualified on merit (they were in the same group as Germany and Iran)?

[This message has been edited by james (edited 11-30-2000).]

James. All correct. But how did they FARE??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

oh, they were terrible, but that isn't what you said!

I don't know if this fits in here, and I certainly don't want to offend anybody, but... well, check this out! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif http://www.dovewinds.com/dubya

Quite right, ozstamps. But, of course I did opine that they were, "just about up to the level..."

I should be careful, however. We can hardly comment on this side of the 49th parallel as our National winter game has been co-opted, and our National summer game has been relegated to the playing fields of Universities, and little else.

OMNI, OMNI Warning:

O.J. Chimes In on Ballot Convoy

Like many other Americans, O.J. Simpson watched TV as cameras followed a truckload of election ballots headed for the state capital. His verdict? ``This is boring!''

``All I could think of was now I know what people went through when they were trying to watch the basketball game and my Bronco was going up the freeway,'' he said in a telephone interview Thursday.

``In my case it may have been a little more intriguing because people didn't know what was going to happen,'' said Simpson. ``Here they know the ballots are going to get to Tallahassee.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Recount-OJ-Simpson.html

As a new Florida resident, Simpson said he voted in Miami-Dade County and is confident his vote was cast accurately. But he said he's talked to many who had problems.

``I know a woman who said she hit her ballot twice,'' he said. ``I think they should recount all the votes.''

From Doc's post. When the likes of O.J.Simpson are telling the government they need to recount the votes, boy have YOU got a problem!

Simpson was sure he voted legally he says. Scrutineers said one ballot paper from Miami Dade county had written on it "It Wasn't Me - the other guy did it." The voter was not known.

The driver of the Ryder rent a truck was praised in Kosovo today. "The only person connected with the Florida election who actually did something right" was the verdict. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif


------------------
~ Glen ~

Our USA WOMEN's football/soccer (call it what you will) are GREAT! We have won several world championships. I won't comment on American men http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

------------------
I wish I were 1,000 miles away

I am really fond of (tall) American men!

ROFLMAO! What a great thread! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Thank you all for bringing some joy into a particularly banal work day.
-levi

------------------
How I dearly wish I was not here . . . .

I did not vote.

I am just a kid remember. So I cant.

Why dont we know whose the President is yet?

Seems silly to me.

KID .. don't forget .. punch that hole only ONCE when you do. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I couldn't resist adding this humorous link to this post...

http://www.tvdance.com/bush-gore/



------------------
Bob
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused.

This election madness has now found its way onto a postage stamp. (of sorts anyway!)

http://www.linns.com/print/archives/20001204/news2.asp

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 12-07-2000).]

Latest Send-up:
_____

Gore Calls For Recount Of Supreme Court Vote
WASHINGTON, DC-- An increasingly desperate Al Gore called for a recount Tuesday of the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. "There is reason to suspect that these nine votes
were not properly counted and that as many as five justices who sided with Mr. Bush did not intend to do so," Gore said. "It is therefore in the best interest of our democracy for the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend judgment in this case until we can be absolutely certain that this court did, in fact, intend to rule in Mr. Bush's favor." Gore added that if his recount request is denied, he will file an appeal with the Interplanetary Supreme Court.

http://www.theonion.com

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

If they do count some more and things get much closer, here is the solution...
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/fife.township/



[This message has been edited by james (edited 12-11-2000).]

Great link James. If it was not from CNN I would have imagined it was a spoof like many of the story links posted above! Only trouble is, George would want good 'ol brother Jeb to flip the coin. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Worth repeating in detail:

Coin flip and lottery settles Michigan election tie

From CNN Correspondent Ed Garsten

December 11, 2000

FIFE LAKE TOWNSHIP, Michigan (CNN) -- With the flip of a coin and a lottery, the winner of the tied race for township supervisor was chosen here Monday.

Two candidates for the office, incumbent Dave Stremlow and challenger Toni Larson, were tied at 297 votes each. An Election Night count indicated Stremlow was the winner by two votes, and a machine recount cut Stremlow's lead to a single vote. Larson requested a hand recount, finding one more vote in her favor, resulting in the tie.

To settle things once and for all, the town relied on a 1954 state statute that says
in the case of an election tie, a lottery will decide the winner.

The county court clerk flipped a coin to determine which candidate would draw first
from a box holding two slips of paper, one that read "elected" and another that read
"not elected."

Larson won the coin flip and the draw and was named the winner. "This is bizarre," she said, after selecting the winning slip of paper.

Stremlow didn't complain. "This is the democratic way," he said, and quickly
departed the scene.

------------------
~ Glen ~

Another thread with allusions to Gilbert & Sullivan got me to think about the fun that W.S. Gilbert might have had with the current situation. Here is my present guess, subject to reversal by the Supreme Court. Permission to reproduce with attribution is granted.

I am the very model of a presidential candidate
I’m running for the job because the public has demanded it
I proudly boast for me that the appropriate comparison
Is Washington or Lincoln and not Nixon, Grant, or Harrison

My managers and handlers have me scripted to perfection now
I’m sure I should have really been your definite selection now
Six hundred Pat Buchanan votes and I’d have won election now
Instead my only hope is to solicit a defection now

If I had had the sense to let Bill Clinton run my mission team
Or smooched again with Tipper, I’d be picking my transition team
I didn’t try to win the job; I thought that I’d be handed it
I am the very model of a presidential candidate.

It is official. The next US President is .....

OMG. A new President whose eyebrows meet in the centre when he frowns???????? What kind of look is that? Lucky they do not put your guy on notes and coins and stamps. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Mel Gibson was my choice. Oops, the CIA now has my ID address, darn.

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 12-14-2000).]

I deleted my inappropriate message.

[This message has been edited by wonderland60069 (edited 12-14-2000).]

Ummm. Wonderland. Before you started your multi dozen post 'cyber-stalking' rampage this morning, did you notice the IP logging button was turned "ON" ??? (Lower right of each post) Don't give up your day job. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum75/HTML/000016.html

------------------
~ Happy Holidays! ... Glen ~