"America"

"Yes America is gigantic, but a gigantic mistake"

Told by Sigmund Freud (1988)

how does it grab you? I don think so.

Regards

Milan

www.speakeasylkme.blogspot.com 

It appears to me that in America you have only two choices, you are a republican or you are a democrat. Here we have many parties. I think that is better because the world is not black and white like that, there is a whole lot of grey area to. It can be that you agree to the democrats point of view on certain things but not on all of them, but there is not really an alternative accept the republicans. Also it is considered unethical to try to influence the media here, on a political program there will be candidates from all parties. A few years ago we decided ( in Belgium ) to prohibit advertising for political parties in order to give everybody an equal chance.

Also I believe the president has to much power in america, that amount of power should not be in the hands of one person. But maybe I am not well informed on that, can you tell me what the power of the president and what the power of the senate is G?

I am also for obligated voting.

Oonah, good point about the problems with the two-party system. To my mind there often seems to be little difference between those two parties and often I think candidates from either party will be equally ineffective. Still, I guess it's better than a single party system (in China, for example)

I agree that it's unethical to try to influence the media, but most campaign spending here goes to the media not to influence them but to get their message to the masses. Of course it's quite clear that media bias exists here (most Mainstream Media is very pro-democrat/left leaning) and their coverage usually reflects that bias. Not because of money from candidates, but simply because the journalists/editors lean that way. 

If political advertising is banned (tv only or everywhere?) what means do candidates use to address the people. I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that kind of restriction on speech here. 

Oonah, the powers of the congress, the president, and the supreme court are spelled out in our Constitution. Over the years it does seem that a lot more power has been invested in the office of President and in the central government in general than was intended by our founders. 

It seems as if more people are comfortable having just a single person in charge. Even if things are bad it gives them someone to focus their ire on. 

A lot of that is perception, though, especially internationally, and the President is the one person who represents our country to the rest of the world (and to his own people, really) The same would hold for the presidents, premiers, etc of other countries. A lot of people place all the blame or give all the credit to that one man or woman, when the rest of the government might be more responsible. 

I would have to say that we disagree strongly about obligated voting. If you assume that there are a certain percentage of people in any electorate that are not informed at all, don't care at all, or are grossly misinformed or uneducated about even the political or government process, do you really feel good FORCING them to vote?

I really feel uncomfortable with most government use of force, even if it seems like a nice cause. When I think of examples of countries where 90% plus of the eligible populace has voted in an election, I am less comfortable. 

There is no restriction of speech but on advertisement. For instance, the "vote for…" signs everywhere. Parties may no longer use promotional material, like pens, buttons, that sort of thing. The idea behind it is that when you are an older, accomplished party with lot's of means, you can distribute a lot of promotional material and get more name recognition than a new, smaller party. But that is not custom everywhere in Europe.

Every party has a set of ideas, they can express and discuss them in political programs or on their websites, the newspapers, the news, the radio. Schools here also teach special classes to inform the youth around that time of year. That way every party has the same means to reach the public and you always hear all different opinions. 

I came across a good comparison of US-system and Belgium-system somewhere, I'll try to find it, might be interesting.

on obligated voting:

In America there are less and less citizens ( about 56 % ) that make the effort to vote. They have to get themselves registrated and they have to be able to get time off to vote because American elections are held on weekdays. The youth is less and less interested in politics. By this, a part of democracy is lost.

In Belgium we have an obligated voting system, when you are 18 years old you have to vote or else you will get a penalty. If you have no opinion at all on politics, you can choose to vote "blanc". Voting is always on a Sunday-morning and it is a legal excuse not to work that day.

I believe that no system is perfect and I am not very fond of restrictions either, but in this case I think it serves the democracy. You risk to lose the votes of a big group of people that have an opinion but have other things to do or have obligations on that day, (do not underestimate the laziness of people) whiles fanatic people always vote.

btw, can you tell a bit about the electorial system in Colombia to? Always nice to have information first-hand :)

oonah, I would contend that advertising IS speech. Political speech is and probably should be the MOST protected. 

As far as obligated voting goes, I do agree with you that the process should be easier. registration processes should be simpler and voting should be on weekends, for example. In a few states here voting early is possible and easy and in some places voting by mail is the only option. I'm not sure, but I think the voter participation is higher in those place where voting is less of a chore. 

What is the penalty for not voting in your country? Is is significant or simply a nuisance. I would also be concerned about how the government would enforce such a requirement. I'm sure you are aware that in general, Americans don't like to be told what to do or be kept track of.  ;)

/quote

What is the penalty for not voting in your country?

/end quote

A first, non-legal abstention will be punished ( depending on the circumstances ) with a reprimand or a fine from 5€ to 10€.
By repeat, the fine will be 10€ to 25€. Replacing prison penalty will not be pronounced.
When non-legal abstention occurs at least 4 times in 15 years, the person will be suspended from the elector-lists for 10 years and may no longer receive appointments, promotions or awards from any public government during that period.

Maybe it is more correct to state it is not obligated to vote but to go to the election office. You can choose not to vote by simply  leaving your ballot blank or by drawing a cartoon on it making it not valid. You can vote blank with electronic voting to, there is a special box called blanco for that purpose. Voting "not valid" with the voting computer is more difficult, you'd have to deliberately fold your magnet card for that.

The blanco votes and non-valid votes do not get counted, so you could say they indirectly make the larger parties a bit larger, I guess every system has its flaws.

When you are sick or to old you can vote by proxy.

Thanks for the info Nu, I was unaware there was a Green Party, if that means an ecological party, that is nice.

But am I wrong or do these parties not make a difference at all and it still is the privilege of the two main parties to deliver a president?

/quote

oonah, I would contend that advertising IS speech. Political speech is and probably should be the MOST protected.

/end quote

ok, if you want to take it very literally, advertisement is speech. But, it is not speech that must be protected imho, if a person here could not fully express his/her political views or was censored in any way, it would be the main article in every newspaper there is here, people here love their freedom of speech as much as Americans do. I personally do not find it dangerous that our government restricts spam, because that is what it is. I prefer our lovely landscape here without the "VOTE FOR ME" billboards, I do not think I am missing any message at all, in election time every medium gives so much information that you can be certain to have heard it all by election day. I look on the promotional materials of political parties as the advertisements of penis-enlargements I receive in my mailbox, sure it contains a message, but no important info at all. :)

Not everyone here agrees on this issue, but the majority appreciates it. Maybe it is my history in the advertisement business, I have seen the impact stupid marketing slogans can have, as long as they are widely spread and repeated often enough.

One could say that in a way you protect political speech with this restriction, it gives every person equal means of getting the message through, whiles otherwise you see mostly billboards of the richer parties and would not notice a little poster of a new party somewhere in between. The restriction was welcomed by the underdogs, protested on by the biggest conservative party.