1) On the original question, I think Iraq has had very little to do with the current demonstrations taking place across the Middle East and North Africa. Most people in the region saw the invasion as a disaster with the sectarian war, exodus of the middle class, and didn't like the U.S. to begin with and thought the invasion reinforced those negative stereotypes about Washington.
2) As for democracy and beyond, these events could be the beginning of a move towards democracy, but it could have wide variations, and never develop in many countries. Most people think of democracy as simply having the right to vote in free and fair elections. That is only the most public, and actually one of the easiest things to accomplish. Democracy is in fact much more. Countries have to develop the rule of law, agreed upon norms for how groups will act, an active civil society and free and fair media, political participation, a variety of political parties with a popular base, etc. Those things take years, decades, etc. to develop.
In Iraq for example they have had four national elections since the 2003 invasion placing it far and above the rest of the region that tends towards monarchies and autocracies. At the same time, it only has a quasi-democracy with very weak institutions, no rule of law, no due process, widespread abuse and torture, very few parties actually have a base, it has a huge number of media outlets, but very few of them are independent with most being run by political parties, the government has tried to tighten restrictions on the press at the same time, the country is ranked the fourth most corrupt in the world, every government is a national unity one which means it can barley govern because there are such a wide disparity of groups included in it, etc.
Also look at Egypt. You had military rulers there since the 1950s. Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all military men. When Mubarak stepped down, the military took direct control and there are still no details on how long they will stay in power, and what they will transition to. Even if they do turn over control to civilians, their power will remain in tact. They run large parts of the economy and government, maintain corrupt practices, and they will not let anyone challenge those privileges, which are a major barrier to democratic rule.
As with many things the devil is in the details and that's what people really need to keep an eye on with these on-going events.
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head. There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.
If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word. I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.
LMFAO, but go ahead, please tell the story of how independent/third party candidates shaped America.
(Though if that Nader fellow runs 60 more times or so he may end up as the mayor of somewhere)
Laugh your fucking ass off all you want. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery forces. It was kind of a big deal and shaped America at least a little.
Roosevelt's Progressive Party elected hundreds of local candidates between 1912 and 1916. He came in second in the presidential election that year.
You can debate the importance of the Progressive Party but it was pro-suffrage and advocated for a lot of the reforms that were eventually enacted under FDR.
I think George Wallace's 1968 showing accelerated the conversion of the Republican Party to a South-based party that used racial resentment as a major electoral tool. He won several states - it wasn't a minor effort.
Then there's Ross Perot. You may think Clinton would have won in '92 even if Perot hadn't run, but I'm not sure that's true.
If "democracy" has to mean every voice and position gets the same representation then let's just change the word to magicocracy.
Please. Every voice and position is not realistic but a better model of representation is.
Somewhere within all the amendments and footnotes, that is what a constitutional republic is, right? Its roots being, in the simplest definition, rule by both the wealthy and the poor. Edit - rule by and accountability to both.
I guess. There have been proposals to increase the size of the US House significantly in order to achieve those ends, with the idea being that if a US rep represented fewer constituents there would be more accountability.
LMFAO, but go ahead, please tell the story of how independent/third party candidates shaped America.
(Though if that Nader fellow runs 60 more times or so he may end up as the mayor of somewhere)
Laugh your fucking ass off all you want. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery forces. It was kind of a big deal and shaped America at least a little.
Roosevelt's Progressive Party elected hundreds of local candidates between 1912 and 1916. He came in second in the presidential election that year.
You can debate the importance of the Progressive Party but it was pro-suffrage and advocated for a lot of the reforms that were eventually enacted under FDR.
I think George Wallace's 1968 showing accelerated the conversion of the Republican Party to a South-based party that used racial resentment as a major electoral tool. He won several states - it wasn't a minor effort.
Then there's Ross Perot. You may think Clinton would have won in '92 even if Perot hadn't run, but I'm not sure that's true.
I'm pretty sure 1854 is more than 150 years ago (see my original post)
The Progressive party never fully split from the Republican party, many candidates referred to themselves as 'Progressive Republicans' or some such. After four years they all rejoined the Republican party.
Do you actually believe America is not a two party country? Really? If not what is your point anyway?
Please be real, everything you posted doesn't add up to much in the scheme of things.
LMFAO, but go ahead, please tell the story of how independent/third party candidates shaped America.
(Though if that Nader fellow runs 60 more times or so he may end up as the mayor of somewhere)
Laugh your fucking ass off all you want. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery forces. It was kind of a big deal and shaped America at least a little.
Roosevelt's Progressive Party elected hundreds of local candidates between 1912 and 1916. He came in second in the presidential election that year.
You can debate the importance of the Progressive Party but it was pro-suffrage and advocated for a lot of the reforms that were eventually enacted under FDR.
I think George Wallace's 1968 showing accelerated the conversion of the Republican Party to a South-based party that used racial resentment as a major electoral tool. He won several states - it wasn't a minor effort.
Then there's Ross Perot. You may think Clinton would have won in '92 even if Perot hadn't run, but I'm not sure that's true.
I'm pretty sure 1854 is more than 150 years ago (see my original post)
The Progressive party never fully split from the Republican party, many candidates referred to themselves as 'Progressive Republicans' or some such. After four years they all rejoined the Republican party.
Do you actually believe America is not a two party country? Really? If not what is your point anyway?
Please be real, everything you posted doesn't add up to much in the scheme of things.
I think my point was fairly straightforward and added up to at least as much as what you've posted here. I never claimed to have a major, life-altering point here, but the notion that third parties and independents have been of no importance in US politics is simply wrong factually.
What's your point? That nothing matters unless it results in some sort of cataclysmic, immediate change? That's kind of a childish view of history.
LMFAO, but go ahead, please tell the story of how independent/third party candidates shaped America.
(Though if that Nader fellow runs 60 more times or so he may end up as the mayor of somewhere)
Laugh your fucking ass off all you want. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery forces. It was kind of a big deal and shaped America at least a little.
Roosevelt's Progressive Party elected hundreds of local candidates between 1912 and 1916. He came in second in the presidential election that year.
You can debate the importance of the Progressive Party but it was pro-suffrage and advocated for a lot of the reforms that were eventually enacted under FDR.
I think George Wallace's 1968 showing accelerated the conversion of the Republican Party to a South-based party that used racial resentment as a major electoral tool. He won several states - it wasn't a minor effort.
Then there's Ross Perot. You may think Clinton would have won in '92 even if Perot hadn't run, but I'm not sure that's true.
I'm pretty sure 1854 is more than 150 years ago (see my original post)
The Progressive party never fully split from the Republican party, many candidates referred to themselves as 'Progressive Republicans' or some such. After four years they all rejoined the Republican party.
Do you actually believe America is not a two party country? Really? If not what is your point anyway?
Please be real, everything you posted doesn't add up to much in the scheme of things.
I think my point was fairly straightforward and added up to at least as much as what you've posted here. I never claimed to have a major, life-altering point here, but the notion that third parties and independents have been of no importance in US politics is simply wrong factually.
What's your point? That nothing matters unless it results in some sort of cataclysmic, immediate change? That's kind of a childish view of history.
In case you missed it the first time around, my point is that America is a two-party country and that third party/independent politics has had a negligible effect at most.
If those are the best examples you can come up with then thank you for proving my point.
In case you missed it the first time around, my point is that America is a two-party country and that third party/independent politics has had a negligible effect at most.
If those are the best examples you can come up with then thank you for proving my point.
.
I didn't miss your opinion. I just don't share it, despite your well-known infallibility.
Here's a brief summary for anyone who might not just accept the fact-free, argument-bereft pronouncements of the Pope of East Village:
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head. There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.
If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word. I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.
Only one of the above people won a national election, and that was about 100 years ago.
b/w
Are you really referencing an 1860 election to support a claim that non-Democrat and Republican parties have a siginifcant presence in current American politics? :ehhx2:
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head. There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.
If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word. I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.
Only one of the above people won a national election, and that was about 100 years ago.
b/w
Are you really referencing an 1860 election to support a claim that non-Democrat and Republican parties have a siginifcant presence in current American politics? :ehhx2:
You don't have to win to influence the outcome of an election. You just have to draw more potential votes away from either side to affect the final outcome. In my own lifetime this possibly happened in presidential elections in 1968, 1992, and 2000.
And the discussion wasn't limited to "current" anything.
I like how I'm supposed to offer ironclad reams of evidence in order to answer "arguments" like "LMFAO" and "only one of them won."
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head. There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.
If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word. I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.
Only one of the above people won a national election, and that was about 100 years ago.
b/w
Are you really referencing an 1860 election to support a claim that non-Democrat and Republican parties have a siginifcant presence in current American politics? :ehhx2:
You don't have to win to influence the outcome of an election. You just have to draw more potential votes away from either side to affect the final outcome. In my own lifetime this possibly happened in presidential elections in 1968, 1992, and 2000.
And the discussion wasn't limited to "current" anything.
I like how I'm supposed to offer ironclad reams of evidence in order to answer "arguments" like "LMFAO" and "only one of them won."
It is doubious at best to suggest that the 1968, 92 and 00 elections final out come was affected by 3rd party candidates. Who are we talking about? Wallace, Perot and Nader?
Lets look at 2000.
Gore won the popular vote out right.
Nader received almost no votes in FL.
Gore won the most votes in Florida, but the vote counting was stopped at an arbitrary point when Bush was ahead, by the Secretary Of State who was also on the Bush Campaign.
Nader in no way changed the out come.
Nor did Wallace or Perot.
Perot did influence the debate.
Your point, that some people have run as ineffectual 3rd party candidates, therefore we have 3rd parties is undeniable.
Please don't try to expand it.
If you are going to talk about 3rd party candidates, talk about someone important like Eugene Debbs.
In case you missed it the first time around, my point is that America is a two-party country and that third party/independent politics has had a negligible effect at most.
If those are the best examples you can come up with then thank you for proving my point.
.
I didn't miss your opinion. I just don't share it, despite your well-known infallibility.
Then why did you ask me to repeat it? (BD Wrote: "What's Your point?")
BobDesperado said:
Here's a brief summary for anyone who might not just accept the fact-free, argument-bereft pronouncements of the Pope of East Village:
It is doubious at best to suggest that the 1968, 92 and 00 elections final out come was affected by 3rd party candidates. Who are we talking about? Wallace, Perot and Nader?
Lets look at 2000.
Gore won the popular vote out right.
Nader received almost no votes in FL.
Gore won the most votes in Florida, but the vote counting was stopped at an arbitrary point when Bush was ahead, by the Secretary Of State who was also on the Bush Campaign.
Nader in no way changed the out come.
Nor did Wallace or Perot.
Perot did influence the debate.
Your point, that some people have run as ineffectual 3rd party candidates, therefore we have 3rd parties is undeniable.
Please don't try to expand it.
If you are going to talk about 3rd party candidates, talk about someone important like Eugene Debbs.
Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. I know people are using very peculiar definitions in this thread but that's a long way from "almost no votes." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172525738.html
You should probably take a couple of minutes to look stuff like that up before proceeding with an argument based on "facts" you make up.
And if Debs was so important why can't you spell his name? I did almost mention him but he didn't have the effect on any particular election that TR, LaFollette, Wallace or Nader did. Debs' best showing was about 6% in 1912, the same election where TR got 27% and came in 2nd as a 3rd party candidate, thus throwing the election to Woodrow Wilson. But the Pope says that wasn't a significant event, either, so I guess my silly old facts don't matter.
In case you missed it the first time around, my point is that America is a two-party country and that third party/independent politics has had a negligible effect at most.
If those are the best examples you can come up with then thank you for proving my point.
.
I didn't miss your opinion. I just don't share it, despite your well-known infallibility.
Then why did you ask me to repeat it? (BD Wrote: "What's Your point?")
Because it was so slight that I thought you must have been trying to express something more. The first part ("America is a two-party country") is generally true. The second part ("negligible") is only true if your view of history is very shallow. You don't get a degree in history by listing the presidents.
Comments
There are two in the Senate. Does it really matter?
I suppose in a "perfect" democracy everyone would get one vote. His or her own, with everyone holding office.
There's also our primary process which produces unexpected results on a regular basis. Just ask Hillary Clinton.
2) As for democracy and beyond, these events could be the beginning of a move towards democracy, but it could have wide variations, and never develop in many countries. Most people think of democracy as simply having the right to vote in free and fair elections. That is only the most public, and actually one of the easiest things to accomplish. Democracy is in fact much more. Countries have to develop the rule of law, agreed upon norms for how groups will act, an active civil society and free and fair media, political participation, a variety of political parties with a popular base, etc. Those things take years, decades, etc. to develop.
In Iraq for example they have had four national elections since the 2003 invasion placing it far and above the rest of the region that tends towards monarchies and autocracies. At the same time, it only has a quasi-democracy with very weak institutions, no rule of law, no due process, widespread abuse and torture, very few parties actually have a base, it has a huge number of media outlets, but very few of them are independent with most being run by political parties, the government has tried to tighten restrictions on the press at the same time, the country is ranked the fourth most corrupt in the world, every government is a national unity one which means it can barley govern because there are such a wide disparity of groups included in it, etc.
Also look at Egypt. You had military rulers there since the 1950s. Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all military men. When Mubarak stepped down, the military took direct control and there are still no details on how long they will stay in power, and what they will transition to. Even if they do turn over control to civilians, their power will remain in tact. They run large parts of the economy and government, maintain corrupt practices, and they will not let anyone challenge those privileges, which are a major barrier to democratic rule.
As with many things the devil is in the details and that's what people really need to keep an eye on with these on-going events.
Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head. There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.
If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word. I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.
Laugh your fucking ass off all you want. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery forces. It was kind of a big deal and shaped America at least a little.
Roosevelt's Progressive Party elected hundreds of local candidates between 1912 and 1916. He came in second in the presidential election that year.
You can debate the importance of the Progressive Party but it was pro-suffrage and advocated for a lot of the reforms that were eventually enacted under FDR.
I think George Wallace's 1968 showing accelerated the conversion of the Republican Party to a South-based party that used racial resentment as a major electoral tool. He won several states - it wasn't a minor effort.
Then there's Ross Perot. You may think Clinton would have won in '92 even if Perot hadn't run, but I'm not sure that's true.
I guess. There have been proposals to increase the size of the US House significantly in order to achieve those ends, with the idea being that if a US rep represented fewer constituents there would be more accountability.
I'm pretty sure 1854 is more than 150 years ago (see my original post)
The Progressive party never fully split from the Republican party, many candidates referred to themselves as 'Progressive Republicans' or some such. After four years they all rejoined the Republican party.
Do you actually believe America is not a two party country? Really? If not what is your point anyway?
Please be real, everything you posted doesn't add up to much in the scheme of things.
I think my point was fairly straightforward and added up to at least as much as what you've posted here. I never claimed to have a major, life-altering point here, but the notion that third parties and independents have been of no importance in US politics is simply wrong factually.
What's your point? That nothing matters unless it results in some sort of cataclysmic, immediate change? That's kind of a childish view of history.
In case you missed it the first time around, my point is that America is a two-party country and that third party/independent politics has had a negligible effect at most.
If those are the best examples you can come up with then thank you for proving my point.
I didn't miss your opinion. I just don't share it, despite your well-known infallibility.
Here's a brief summary for anyone who might not just accept the fact-free, argument-bereft pronouncements of the Pope of East Village:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/11/23/third-party-history/
Only one of the above people won a national election, and that was about 100 years ago.
b/w
Are you really referencing an 1860 election to support a claim that non-Democrat and Republican parties have a siginifcant presence in current American politics? :ehhx2:
You don't have to win to influence the outcome of an election. You just have to draw more potential votes away from either side to affect the final outcome. In my own lifetime this possibly happened in presidential elections in 1968, 1992, and 2000.
And the discussion wasn't limited to "current" anything.
I like how I'm supposed to offer ironclad reams of evidence in order to answer "arguments" like "LMFAO" and "only one of them won."
It is doubious at best to suggest that the 1968, 92 and 00 elections final out come was affected by 3rd party candidates. Who are we talking about? Wallace, Perot and Nader?
Lets look at 2000.
Gore won the popular vote out right.
Nader received almost no votes in FL.
Gore won the most votes in Florida, but the vote counting was stopped at an arbitrary point when Bush was ahead, by the Secretary Of State who was also on the Bush Campaign.
Nader in no way changed the out come.
Nor did Wallace or Perot.
Perot did influence the debate.
Your point, that some people have run as ineffectual 3rd party candidates, therefore we have 3rd parties is undeniable.
Please don't try to expand it.
If you are going to talk about 3rd party candidates, talk about someone important like Eugene Debbs.
Then why did you ask me to repeat it? (BD Wrote: "What's Your point?")
Wow, I haven't lived in the East Village for 20 years and I'm still Pope?
Awesome!
Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. I know people are using very peculiar definitions in this thread but that's a long way from "almost no votes." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172525738.html
You should probably take a couple of minutes to look stuff like that up before proceeding with an argument based on "facts" you make up.
And if Debs was so important why can't you spell his name? I did almost mention him but he didn't have the effect on any particular election that TR, LaFollette, Wallace or Nader did. Debs' best showing was about 6% in 1912, the same election where TR got 27% and came in 2nd as a 3rd party candidate, thus throwing the election to Woodrow Wilson. But the Pope says that wasn't a significant event, either, so I guess my silly old facts don't matter.
Because it was so slight that I thought you must have been trying to express something more. The first part ("America is a two-party country") is generally true. The second part ("negligible") is only true if your view of history is very shallow. You don't get a degree in history by listing the presidents.